Perhaps re. the low-impact device, but the more there are, the more likelihood flaws in the software will be found and service packs and viruses will appear (look and the many service packs for OS X, many under the guise of a new version!). It's only a matter of time.

I'm not sure I agree re. the other point. There are a multitude of PC laptops with decent screens and keyboards for a similar price. Take the Acer 3810TZ, that has a 10 hour battery life (tested in reviews, not just spec sheet), 1.3Ghz chip, 4GB RAM, 250HD, 13.3" TFT, and all the connectivity of a proper laptop (USB, wifi giga-ethernet etc) and is around £400 + VAT, for that slight premium you get a proper system running a 64-bit OS, with a keyboard. Or if you wanted a Netbook the Tosh NB205 at £255 + VAT is a good buy, or the ubiquitous Samsung's, say the N210 with a 9 hour battery life at £250 + VAT.

Sure none of these are closed systems, as thin as an iPad nor as beautifully crafted, but when you are spending money, surely you'll want a device that can fill many roles, without being locked into a store to buy apps from which is essentially what Apple deems ok.




You've never used any device, large or small with a touch screen? Or just not an iPad?

Tablet PCs and large screen all-in-ones with touchscreens have been on the market a long time, with the launch of the iPad people seem to think it's something new, it isn't. The concept is different with the OS, the technology really isn't that new at all.

I was setting up systems for estimator quotation systems using bespoke Excel systems with HP touchscreen laptops many years ago (the screens twisted from a laptop to a tablet), client wanted it, I've never been that impressed with a large format device.

I'm sure it'll find a market, but I doubt it'll be as big as Apple think, I can't see it rocketing like an iPhone or iPod, but I'll wait and see.

I think you missed Jon's point. It is a device for people who don't need a full laptop. It is a simple, easy to use device.

Because it isn't cluttered with things like a file system that the user has to navigate around and because the OS isn't bound by the constrictions of being a Windows 7 device (or Linux), the user interface is very simple to use and is designed to work as flawlessly as possible with a multi-touch finger interface.

The user has a music library, a book library, a photo library and can surf the web all without having to know what a file is and how this abstract construct relates to a tune or a book or a photograph.

If you want to hunt around the file system, tweak it etc. then the iPad isn't the device for you.

If you are doing a lot of content creation and need a keyboard or a mouse, then you won't be looking at an iPad.

For the people who buy the iPad, it doesn't matter if the device is 1-bit or 128-bit. It works. The little apps that they need work and they are simple to get hold of. The device only has 256MB RAM(?), so it doesn't matter whether it is 32-bit or 64-bit, it won't use all of the address space and even the uses Numbers is likely to be put to probably won't worry the user that it is only doing 32-bit math.

As to battery life, it plays video for 12 hours without stopping. Most normal laptops, which claim 9 hours, mean 9 hours of very light use. Have them try and play video non-stop and you might get 4 or maybe in extreme cases 6 hours out of it, but over 12 hours? And what does that mean for normal use? Reading books, surfing the net etc. That uses a lot less processor power and thus increases the battery life compared to the video playback.


I think you've just hit on all of the points that make the iPad appealing to its potential audience. The users don't have to hunt around the big bad Internet, hoping to stumble across an application that does what they want. They have a central market place to look for them.

As a more tech savvy user, I don't like Apple's policies for the app designers and their erratic "rules" (or lack thereof) which seem to reject applications for no good reason. But I also see the benefits this system brings - a lack of malware, because all apps are tested, before they appear in the store and the user has a single place to look for applications, safe in the knowledge, they won't stumble across anything nasty.

(Yes, Safari is open to hacking attempts, but the lack of plug-ins, like Flash) make it safer than most PCs and the sandboxing makes it harder for a malware writer to get control of the machine.


The reports are saying that you really have to use an iPad to really understand what makes it so good, and why you can't compare it to an iPhone or a tablet PC.


The technology might not be new, but the implementation is. That is what makes the iPad different. The Tablet has been around for over a decade, but hasn't really taken off. My first touchscreen PC was an HP150, back in the mid-80s. But it has never really taken off.

One of the reasons, at least for the tablet, is that, until now, they have generally used Windows or Linux as a base, with one of the normal shells. The iPad uses an operating system shell which has been designed from the ground up to be a multi-touch interface. It doesn't try and overlay multi-touch concepts onto a mouse-orientated operating system. The two just don't mix.

So, yes, the technology isn't all that new, but the implementation, with an operating system shell dedicated to touch and the controls and tasks it is capable of limited to what is really essential is what makes it different and what is making it a success, at least initially.

I think Android could give it a run for its money, in the tablet space, but I don't think Windows 7 is going to make that much of a difference, over previous tablet generations. It is an improvement over previous versions, certainly, but it isn't the paradigm shift that the iPad OS is.


I've worked on similar systems in the past as well. But the form factor is different. Because there is no keyboard, no ports and no disk drive etc. it is much slimmer and fits better in the hand, is less bulky and is instantly on.

Even when a Windows tablet wakes up from sleep, a good 10 seconds can go by, before the machine is ready for use (same with my iMac). Waking it out of hibernation can take longer than booting the machine from off! With the iPad, you press the button and start working, no delay.


I'm interested to see where it goes. I certainly think there is a huge potential market for the device. The question is, whether Apple can stay on message with it. The problem is, a lot of the early buyers are tech-savvy people, who will expect a notebook type device and will be disappointed, I hope enough of the target audience also buy them and the message spreads.

A 64-bit Desktop OS on a 1.3GHZ CPU? Seriously? I've got an NC-10 which has a 1.6GHz CPU (I think) and windows 7 is a bit.. sluggish. Part of the appeal to me at least of the iPad over a netbook is that the hardware and OS are effectively designed specifically to work with each other. With that netbook, you're basically getting an OS that's actually designed to run on a full spec desktop PC with a (say) 2GHz+ multicore CPU with a Ghz or better main bus plus having a fast disk to do swapping on. On a netbook you're running it on a machine that doesn't really live up to that spec.

On that machine, I'd actually much rather have XP which was essentially designed to run properly on much lighter hardware than Vista or 7.


Make no mistake I actually do like my NC-10 and for a lot of people it makes a better choice than an iPad is. However I still have to do regular updates, I still have to run a virus scanner, I still have to install software, I still have to plug in a mouse because nobody in their right mind can stand a touchpad for more than about 30 minutes.. A netbook/laptop != an iPad and just comparing specs doesn't make one inherently 'better' than the other because both are tools, nothing more. Sometimes you want a hammer, some times you want a screwdriver. A really really good hammer still isn't a very good screwdriver. A netbook and an iPad can fulfill a lot of the same needs for a lot of people but not equally fulfill all of the needs of all of the people. They are simply not equivalent products in that sense and if you assume they are, people at both ends are going to end up fed up.


You're making a very understandable mistake - you're looking at a product and seeing all the roles it can fulfill, counting up the total and comparing that number. That is, if you don't mind me saying, a fallacy. You could be buying a product that fulfills roles you simply don't need it to do whereas another product fulfills only the roles you actually require better but can't do the 'extra stuff' you'll actually never ask it to do anyway. The best product for you to buy is the one which most completely fulfills the roles you wish it to perform in the most pleasing/efficient way for the least amount of money and nothing more. If you place value on a product's ability to fulfill roles you'll never ask it to do, you're heading towards making a bad decision.
This is a much more generic issue than the iPad though. There's a whole section of management theory to do with writing specifications & requirements properly and how to evaluate products against them. It's something we are as humans inherently bad at, because we get distracted by shiny things and we're not objective enough. if you can, get hold of a book called 'Irrationality' by Stuart Sutherland. It's all about this stuff, although not exactly 'light reading'



Just the iPad. I've used a few touchscreen phones but I'm cautious in assuming the experience of using the device doesn't change given the radically different size of screen you're using.


I've actually been wanting to try one of those big screen touchscreen PCs for a while but I've never come across one of to them. The iPad's USP is I think that it's designed from the ground up to be a touchscreen device. The OS is touchscreen only, the device only has a touchscreen. With any touchscreen PC running Windows you're always essentially getting a compromise - it's a product designed for use with mouse & keyboard that has been modified to work with a touchscreen. Somehow, I suspect that's not as pleasant to use. Of course, this is why I want to try one. If MS have genuinely designed Windows 7 as a successful 'multi-interface' OS that's quite something.


I don't think Apple have made any public target for it to sell. When they launched the iPhone they publicly stated the target they wanted it to reach - 10% of the smartphone market in a year or something - but they didn't do anything like that with the iPad. It would be interesting to know, behind all the launch presentation hype and bluster, how many they actually though they would sell of the thing.

Change "device" for "product".
People 'love' being locked in, the iPhone and iPod Touch are closed products and they've been a roaring success, even though they are locked into a certain controlled market of apps, and even though they are locked into iTunes; Apple makes a killing every year saying that if you use OS X you are "locked in" to the Mac hardware. And don't forget the thousands of businesses across the world who chose to lock themselves into MS Office and the MS infrastructure...
Most people don't care about lock in, it's the last thing that they think of, if at all.

As for many rolls, as Jon said: Why buy a product that is OK at doing everything anyone would want to do (it's a bit fiddly, you have to go looking for something you're not really suer about, and get it wrong and your expensive bit of kit is broken and an expensive trip to the PC repair shop is on the cards), when you can get a device that is great at doing most of the things that just YOU want to do (and has every thing there, if it brakes, reset it using iTunes)?

The iPad will fulfil most of the needs of someone who doesn't really need a full computer, and who doesn't need/want to understand a full computer.

Or perhaps, for people who already have one but don't want to lug it around. You may have already seen it, but there's a good piece here:-

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/11 ... -as-a-tool

...that gives a pretty good down-to-earth account of a non-techie writer's first week with an iPad, using it as a tool to make a living. Pretty much sums up how I expect to feel about it when I get my hands on one; a tool that'll do most of what I want whilst I'm out and about without any fuss or bother.

Cheers, Pete

^ the link does not work for me.

Link is now..

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/11/1121/11691

^ Thanks. Link also fixed.

I like being able to open itunes, firefox, msn, skype and a game at the same time.... thats all I have to say.

Once 4.0 hits the devices that'll be fine.

iPad is first computer 100 year old woman bought.
And she loves it.

http://gizmodo.com/5522709/ipad-is-firs ... man-bought

Why would you have MSN and skype open at the same time? They pretty much do identical things.

To receive calls. What's the point of a Skype or MSN address if you don't have it running so no one can call you!?

Of course there are alternative apps which support multiple networks, but in my experience they all have limited functionality and often break when the network is updated.

It would be nice if everyone just used a nice open standard... although I'd be just as happy if everyone just used Microsoft. It's a right pain that some of my friends are on Skype only, others on SIP only, some that Google thing or Yahoo or even (spit) AIM while the vast majority only ever use MSN.