but there is really nothing worth $500 dollars that it does better than a netbook. Personally I think it is the worst mistake apple has made in years, though they are really good at marketing so it might still succeed.
That's the case for you Bob. For other users, netbooks may do too much or not do enough of the core tasks *they* deem relevant as smoothly as the cost says it should. Technology is relevant when its personal, and at that point people will ascribe some value to it that may or may not match another's valuation. There's no point belaboring the fact, because if netbooks were better, then Apple would hjave no case and we'd not be discussing this - as those persons who'd be ideal for an iPad would have purchased and enjoyed a netbook or even an N900.
but there is really nothing worth $500 dollars that it does better than a netbook. Personally I think it is the worst mistake apple has made in years, though they are really good at marketing so it might still succeed.
Of course there is. "Be a tablet form factor device". I would use one over a netbook any day. I always browse the web on my phone before going to bed, laptops are cumbersome in public transportation, I often watch videos before going to bed, I often need to quickly look up something on the web when I'm watching tv, cooking in the kitchen...
The only thing I don't see myself using on the iPad is Pages. Who in their right mind would do serious word processing on a tablet? I could envision myself fixing my photographs in a lightroom-esque app though. That would be sweet, to just kick back and fix all my photos by pulling sliders for contrast, saturation, exposure, cropping...
I absolutely hate that it doesn't come with multitasking though.
but there is really nothing worth $500 dollars that it does better than a netbook...
True dat. I disagree though that Apple are making a mistake, as you said it yourself they are good in marketing...
What is the worst thing that can happen, people wont buy this? So what, it doesn't look like Apple invested much R&D into it. Designs of oversized iPods have been cluttering the intertubes for years now, Apple simply put together what their devotees have been pining for. At that price ($500-$800), they'll maintain their profit margin easily.
Heck, when the price drops to $399 in the autumn, and Flash support is announced (as the second coming of Christ), I might even buy one
"What happened? Firefox FORCED developers to get on board with the standards-based web."
YEAH riiight. Go look what Opera has done from dawn of browser. There you see one and only browser which doesnt compromise when we are talking about web standards. (only thing they do is hack some high priority badly coded websites with browser.js) but firefox is not near it when we are talking about standard markup.
Is it more a matter or simply not using it rather than looking for a replacement?
Personally when I access a web site that allows me the option of Flash or not I always take the non-flash page. I just find that Flash creates too many issues and I prefer not have it and would be very happy never to see it again.
A case in point here is the Disney.go.com page. On my iPhone it looks fine and perfectly acceptable for what I might want to do. On my Windows 7 laptop and Firefox 3.6 it tells me that I need the latest version of Flash. So now I have to jump through hoops to access the page.
On my other computer running Vista and the same version of Firefox the Flash plug-ins won't take at all. I am heartily sick of chasing my tail over Flash and I am inclined to agree with Steve Jobs, Flash is a pain.
If so then that will that be another Apple success story?
Thank you, Rebski, you are making a valid point. I must admit I haven't followed the relations between Apple and Flash; it does seem highly unlikely that Apple will ever add Flash support, as detailed in the article you linked, and here.
Too bad, now unless Netflix decide to start using HTML5 instead of Silverlight, I will have little to no reason to get the iPad...
Is it more a matter or simply not using it rather than looking for a replacement?
Personally when I access a web site that allows me the option of Flash or not I always take the non-flash page. I just find that Flash creates too many issues and I prefer not have it and would be very happy never to see it again.
A case in point here is the Disney.go.com page. On my iPhone it looks fine and perfectly acceptable for what I might want to do. On my Windows 7 laptop and Firefox 3.6 it tells me that I need the latest version of Flash. So now I have to jump through hoops to access the page.
On my other computer running Vista and the same version of Firefox the Flash plug-ins won't take at all. I am heartily sick of chasing my tail over Flash and I am inclined to agree with Steve Jobs, Flash is a pain.
Hulu, Youtube, Joost, Vimeo, among many others are just not viewable without Flash. Not yet at least.
H.264, HTML5 and Mozilla... not gonna happen unless H.264 stops with the $5 million USD per year fees. N900... browser by Mozilla. I see a problem there.
Getting rid of Flash, have at it. But what about the people that actually use YouTube, Vimeo and Hulu? I'm sure it's more than just a couple that would miss those sites - and yea, I'm speaking from an American-centric state of mind. So let's see... BBC iPlayer via the browser. Standalones use Flash... or have to license H.264.
My point is that simply put, "let's get rid of Flash" means that competition should have already replaced it. It hasn't happened. I'd love to get rid of Java. Hasn't happened yet.
And I code in Java sometimes still. Go figure. I also code in Flex/Flash/AS3 too - and you know what? My stuff doesn't make you jump through many hoops either. So Disney, place the blame where it should be - they should have stayed at a version that the majority of their viewers still use and not push the envelope. And last I checked, on Windows 7 - I'm also there, the only hoop to jump through is go to Adobe.com, install the latest Flash Player - which I use the debugger versions since I'm a Flash coder - and be on your merry way. It's smaller than Quicktime - about 10 times smaller - and not exactly a hard thing to install.
I get what you're saying. But without options or replacements that are agreed upon... I refer back to my original statement.
