Apple iPad

iPad looks real shitty.
Steve Jobs is a pretentious douche.
iPods are pretty cool.
Macs are the compatibility and user-friendliness of Windows with the coolness of Linux, but it still seems to fall short somewhere...
Apple Store employees make me want to rage every time I seem them and their skinny blue jeans and navy-blue tees. 
Safari is not even in the same league as Chrome and Firefox.

"HEY LET'S MAKE A REALLY PRETTY PRODUCT WITH MINIMAL FEATURES AND VERY LITTLE END-USER CONTROL AND SLAP A $600 PRICE TAG ON THAT BABY! Good work people, off to my spinning class and then to Trader Joe's".
$499 is hardly a good price for something that can't even do half of what a Netbook, and that's saying something.

/rant

that was a pretty lame rant, but the iPad does suck.

agreed, i figure apple wants to make a quick buck off of the mac and apple community.

It's a portable multi-function device. It can be your navigation system, your cookbook, your sheet music book, your digital photo frame, your digital art canvas, your book reader, your music player, your video viewer, and anything else you need. The iPad isn't for editing video and playing Crysis -- it's for general use, especially in situations where it works better than a standard computer.

Ever heard of the iPod Touch? It's a wonderful portable multi-purpose device that happens to run the iPhone OS. My iPod Touch is my portable web browser, portable music player, portable Youtube player, portable movie player, portable location finder and navigator, portable photo viewer, portable gaming device, portable multi-touch synthesizer, portable restaurant location and information device, portable social networking device, portable personal organizer, portable time killer, portable weather updates device, portable alarm clock, portable timer, and favorite portable device. These are the things *I* use my iPod Touch for daily. It can be so much more than that. There are over 140,000 applications in the App Store. I have no regrets buying this device.

What did you expect them to do, slap an operating system not designed for touch screen devices onto a touch screen device and call it a day? There are quite a few devices like that with Windows on it, if you want to get one. See how well they work.

The reason they're using a modified version of iPhone OS, and not a full blown OS like OS X is because it's brilliantly designed for multi-touch. and it works great for their targeted audience. It isn't supposed to be a full computer-- it's supposed to be in between a computer and a smart phone.

Someone I know made an excellent summary of its two target audiences. This is my summary of his summary with my own take thrown in:

1) It's for 99% of computer users. These are the users who only need the basics like web browsing, emails, photos, videos, and any other basic things. The iPad could replace whatever computer they have, because it does these things better.

Netbooks do these things, but they don't do them well. You can't walk around and use them, and they're, quite frankly, too much for doing these basic tasks. You need to stop thinking that you need a full OS and a keyboard to do these things.

2) It's for people who want a larger and better iPod Touch. Great apps, great interface, many uses, on the go.

On top if everything, I don't see how it's a device with just "minimal features". The app store has over 140,000 existing iPhone/iPod Touch apps, and there will be, without a doubt, a ton of great apps for the iPad. It's not trying to replace the netbook, and I don't even see what netbooks can really do that the iPad won't be able to. I can tell you what things the iPad does better, though.

The possibilities of using the iPad as a MIDI controller or music performance device alone makes my mouth water.

iPad + Bluetooth + MaxMSP = now your iPad connects to anything musical, ever.

I like that music thing : D

Meh, Id still stick to a normal laptop though, just because there is no touch screen. Touch screens in my experience can be easily damaged by pretty much anything. I am part of that 1%, the people who use computers for anything and everything, I am also a strict pc guy, so no macs for me XD.

It's not supposed to replace your laptop. This is for walking around, sitting in the bathroom, or out on the go. It's for when you don't need to use your 3D modeling program and your video editor.

Obviously if you went on a business trip and you needed to edit a video to present, you'd use your laptop. But if you wanted to watch Youtube at a coffee shop, browse the internet in front of your TV, read a book on the john, play a game on the road, read sheet music for your piano, find a good local restaurant, find and follow a cooking recipe, locate an address, or even edit a quick keynote presentation, it would be great to have an iPad.

I've had my iPod Touch since 2007 and nothing has happened to my screen or the touch functionality. I've even dropped it countless times on concrete.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook.

I just bummed that it can't play any flash. So there goes a shit ton of the internet.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook.

You don't realize that there isn't a single device for everybody, and people have different needs. The iPod Touch is just about everything I could want in a portable multi-function device. Its only major drawback, for me, is its small screen and resolution. An iPad that does everything my iPod Touch does and much more is ideal for me.

I just bummed that it can't play any flash. So there goes a shit ton of the internet.

Most content on the web doesn't use flash. I suppose if you really needed flash for web browsing on the go, this could be a let-down.

Though HTML 5 should eventually minimize the use of Flash in a lot of areas.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook.

You don't realize that there isn't a single device for everybody, and people have different needs. The iPod Touch is just about everything I could want in a portable multi-function device. Its only major drawback, for me, is its small screen and resolution. An iPad that does everything my iPod Touch does and much more is ideal for me.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook.

Though HTML 5 should eventually minimize the use of Flash in a lot of areas.

Yeah, I'm kind of just waiting for this.

Just wondering, what do you need Flash for? =o

I only use the internet if A: I need to for research, or B: I'm bored. A lot of my research takes me to websites that are built partially or sometimes fully of flash, and when I'm bored, it's usually YouTube or Flash games. lol. So, basically all flash.

A research website that requires flash. That's dumb. Go to better websites.

The Youtube website works on iPhone OS, but instead of showing a player, you hit play and it opens the video. And there's the Youtube app that's installed on the device out of the box.

Flash games wouldn't work well on a multi-touch device anyway. Most of them require a mouse and keyboard, and none of them take advantage of the iPad technology. Games designed specifically for the iPad will be much better, just as iPhone/iPod Touch games are.

Also, I think I could actually get into books if I had an iPad. I generally don't like reading off of paper. Having to hold a heavy book and find good lighting is a pain, in my opinion. An LCD is best for me. I don't really like electronic ink stuff, and I wouldn't pay for a device that *only* does books.

Also, I think I could actually get into books if I had an iPad. I generally don't like reading off of paper. Having to hold a heavy book and find good lighting is a pain, in my opinion. An LCD is best for me. I don't really like electronic ink stuff, and I wouldn't pay for a device that *only* does books.

If the ipad will get you into reading, you've been reading the wrong stuff; not to mention, LCDs are pretty awful to read on.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook.

You don't realize that there isn't a single device for everybody, and people have different needs. The iPod Touch is just about everything I could want in a portable multi-function device. Its only major drawback, for me, is its small screen and resolution. An iPad that does everything my iPod Touch does and much more is ideal for me.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook because it can do most everything its target audience needs, except maybe be easy to use while walking. For Christ's sake, it doesn't even have a USB drive.
Oh yeah, the iPod touch. Most professionals, who would probably own a Netbook, probably own a smartphone (maybe the iPhone?). Why the hell would they buy an over sized iPod touch?

because media makes it look cool?
And Evveeeerrrryyyy one will get one, so you might as well join in

Netbooks can't be used as MIDI controllers, so I'm sticking with my previous "I only want it for the things it will do for electronic music" angle. I mean, it can be programmed as a Kaosillator, a wireless mixer (if you connect it up to ProTools, or some other software), or a variety of other instruments like Bebot or Bloom, Trope, and Air. And those aps were designed for the iPhone and iPod touch. Image what Brian Eno and others could do with all that extra real-estate.

I'd never buy on myself, though, I'll let the music school do that.

@Irock - grafikal is in graphic design. Flash websites seem quite sensible given that is his area of research. Also, reading books off of an LCD is a terrible way to read a book. It's not at all difficult to find good lighting unless you live and travel in caves, and an average books weighs 12 ounces (average hardcover weighs 1lb.), whereas the ipad weighs 1.5 lbs. If you don't read books now, you won't with an ipad because it is inferior to a book in every way except that it can contain multiple books at once. And if you don't like reading single books, why read multiple books?

Anyway, I agree with you that you should get the device that best suits your desires. Generally, most people may use 3 of the billion features of any one of these portable devices, and the ones they do will probably be available on any of them. If you've never in your life thought to yourself, "Damn! If only I had a portable timer right now!" then ignore that feature and get the cheapest one that does the things you need. For myself, the only portable things I ever want to use are phones and music players, so those are the only features I pay attention to and obviously I won't get either a netbook or an iPad because it would be a waste of money for me. So the whole netbook v. iPad argument is dumb. Get the cheapest one that does the things you want it to do best.

Fuck an iPad.

Also, I think I could actually get into books if I had an iPad. I generally don't like reading off of paper. Having to hold a heavy book and find good lighting is a pain, in my opinion. An LCD is best for me. I don't really like electronic ink stuff, and I wouldn't pay for a device that *only* does books.

this is some backwards ass logic.

The iPad would be amazing if graphic novels and comics went the route of the e-book.

Also, reading books off of an LCD is a terrible way to read a book. It's not at all difficult to find good lighting unless you live and travel in caves, and an average books weighs 12 ounces (average hardcover weighs 1lb.), whereas the ipad weighs 1.5 lbs. If you don't read books now, you won't with an ipad because it is inferior to a book in every way except that it can contain multiple books at once. And if you don't like reading single books, why read multiple books?

Are you telling me that my opinions are wrong? I *prefer* reading off of LCDs, and your opinion can't change that. I get eye strains trying to read off of paper all the time. The text on paper doesn't pop out like the text on LCDs do, and the dim lighting in my room doesn't make it any better. Not to mention I have bad eyesight, even with glasses. Being able to resize and change the font is also a win for the iPad.

Also, I think I could actually get into books if I had an iPad. I generally don't like reading off of paper. Having to hold a heavy book and find good lighting is a pain, in my opinion. An LCD is best for me. I don't really like electronic ink stuff, and I wouldn't pay for a device that *only* does books.

If the ipad will get you into reading, you've been reading the wrong stuff; not to mention, LCDs are pretty awful to read on.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook.

You don't realize that there isn't a single device for everybody, and people have different needs. The iPod Touch is just about everything I could want in a portable multi-function device. Its only major drawback, for me, is its small screen and resolution. An iPad that does everything my iPod Touch does and much more is ideal for me.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook.

iPad looks like shit. Buy a netbook because it can do most everything its target audience needs, except maybe be easy to use while walking. For Christ's sake, it doesn't even have a USB drive.
Oh yeah, the iPod touch. Most professionals, who would probably own a Netbook, probably own a smartphone (maybe the iPhone?). Why the hell would they buy an over sized iPod touch?

See arlen's post.

You don't seem to understand; the iPad is in an entirely different category. Netbooks are supposed to be small, cheap computers for general computing. The iPad is not only that, but a lifestyle device.

I could have a sheet music application and sit my iPad on my keyboard's sheet music stand. You wouldn't even have to turn pages, you would just tap it. Everyone who's ever dealt with sheet music knows how annoying page turning with sheet music could be. Hell, it could even turn it for me.

I could have a great cookbook application and use it in my kitchen. Yes, you could sit your netbook on your counter, but no recipe website compares to some of the cookbook applications on the iPhone and iPod touch.

I could sit the iPad on a table and play a boardgame like Monopoly or Scrabble, and anyone could play with me. It'd be like a board game you would never have to set up, and the pieces never go missing.

I could have a painting/art application that takes full advantage of the multi-touch.

I could have a great application such as MLB Team Up to keep up with current and past games. Even if you're not a sports fan, you have to admire the experience they've created in just two weeks. This is something that, quite frankly, can not be reproduced on a standard computer.

Of course there are the video games that take use of the accelerometer and touch screen.

And the thousands of other applications that are only possible because of the accelerometer and/or touch screen.

Netbooks aren't for everyone, and neither are iPads. You need to realize that some people may prefer the experience they get on an iPad. Don't try to tell me that a netbook would work better for me, because it's not your call.

I could have a painting/art application that takes full advantage of the multi-touch.

I don't see a professional using that and no standard user either unless they just wanted to waste their time with scribbles.

lol.
NOBODY USES FLASH IT'S USELESS APPLE IS BEYOND FLASH!

> no multitasking
> no flash
that's all I need to justify not spending $500 on a larger iTouch.

I don't mind the product, I can think of a couple games, and some fun niche-uses for it, but at its price? no way.

Also as far as games are concerned (SJR on the last page), that's what Dual Boot is for.  OH LAWDY YOU HAVE TO RUN WINDOWS ON YOUR MAC AND SPEND 30 SECONDS BOOTING INTO IT TO PLAY A GAME.  not a big deal, people need to get over it.

I could have a painting/art application that takes full advantage of the multi-touch.

I don't see a professional using that and no standard user either unless they just wanted to waste their time with scribbles.

I don't know

I could have a painting/art application that takes full advantage of the multi-touch.

I don't see a professional using that and no standard user either unless they just wanted to waste their time with scribbles.

Wacom Tablet.

Are you telling me that my opinions are wrong? I *prefer* reading off of LCDs, and your opinion can't change that. I get eye strains trying to read off of paper all the time. The text on paper doesn't pop out like the text on LCDs do, and the dim lighting in my room doesn't make it any better. Not to mention I have bad eyesight, even with glasses. Being able to resize and change the font is also a win for the iPad.

You didn't phrase it as an opinion. You gave two very specific reasons. You did not say, "x is better for me", you said "x is better for me because of fact y and fact z". I stated that they y and z were both objectively false, based on my assumption that you had no relevant physical disability such as bad eyesight or an allergy to paper. The weight reason was total bullshit. However, I was mistaken about the bad eyesight. I am sorry for that.

In answer to your question: No, I did not tell you, "your opinion is wrong". I couldn't have, as I was unaware that it was an opinion. I thought it was a statement based on two specified facts. I challenged the factual basis as unsound.

For greater clarity, you did say "in my opinion", but only with reference to the aforementioned facts. Placing the words, "in my opinion", in a statement of fact does not make it an opinion that is thereby immune from all critique. "The acceleration due to gravity is approximately 10000000 m/s², in my opinion", is also not an opinion.

Are you telling me that my opinions are wrong? I *prefer* reading off of LCDs, and your opinion can't change that. I get eye strains trying to read off of paper all the time. The text on paper doesn't pop out like the text on LCDs do, and the dim lighting in my room doesn't make it any better. Not to mention I have bad eyesight, even with glasses. Being able to resize and change the font is also a win for the iPad.

You didn't phrase it as an opinion. You gave two very specific reasons. You did not say, "x is better for me", you said "x is better for me because of fact y and fact z". I stated that they y and z were both objectively false, based on my assumption that you had no relevant physical disability such as bad eyesight or an allergy to paper. The weight reason was total bullshit. I was mistaken about the bad eyesight, however. I am sorry for that.

In answer to your question: No, I did not tell you, "your opinion is wrong", because I was unaware that it was an opinion. I thought it was a statement based on an factual basis. I challenged the factual basis as unsound. There's a difference.

I said: "I generally don't like reading off of paper. Having to hold a heavy book and find good lighting is a pain, in my opinion." - This implies that I do not like reading off of paper. It also implies that having to hold a heavy book and find good lighting is a pain for me. I in no way, shape, or form implied my opinions as fact. I only stated my opinion. (Also, I didn't mean heavy. I meant thick, but I wasn't thinking clearly)

"An LCD is best for me." - This implies that, for me, an LCD screen is best. I am clearly not implying that my preference is fact. Opinions can not be fact, and I never state them as such.

"I don't really like electronic ink stuff, and I wouldn't pay for a device that *only* does books." - This implies that I do not like electronic ink stuff. This statement is true because it is a fact that I do not like electronic ink stuff. I in no way implied that electronic ink stuff is inferior. I only implied that I do not like it. The second part of the sentence implies that I myself would not pay for a device that only does books. This is a fact, because I would not buy a device that only does books. I am not stating that nobody would. I am speaking for myself.

I did not say: "Reading off of paper is terrible. Having to hold a heavy book and find good lighting is considered a pain. An LCD is best. Electronic ink stuff is inferior. Nobody would pay for a device that *only* does books"

I don't see how you could have confused me stating my opinions as me trying to state facts. Opinions can't be facts, and everything I said is opinion. I very well did phrase everything I said as an opinion.

I generally don't like chimpanzees. The average chimpanzee is seventeen feet tall and eats humans, in my opinion. Gorillas are best for me.

Your only point is that I described books as heavy instead of thick, which I shouldn't have. I already addressed that. It was one mistake. Everything else is valid.

Let me debunk what you said.

Also, reading books off of an LCD is a terrible way to read a book.

I prefer LCDs. Stop stating your opinion as fact.

It's not at all difficult to find good lighting unless you live and travel in caves

"Good lighting" is an opinion, and varies from person to person and place to place.

If you don't read books now, you won't with an ipad because it is inferior to a book in every way except that it can contain multiple books at once.

It's better for me. Stop stating your opinion as fact.

And if you don't like reading single books, why read multiple books?

I've told you my reasons for not reading, and the iPad solves my issues.

Phrasing a statement of fact as an opinion doesn't make it an opinion.  Through its structure, this is how your post logically reads:

I don't like books because they are heavier than an iPad and it is not easy to find good enough lighting. Therefore, the iPad is better for me.

In the above, "heavier than an iPad" and "not easy to find good enough lighting" are the reasons (factual basis) you preferred the iPad over a book (opinion). Those are not opinions. They are a factual basis for your opinion. Challenging the factual basis for an opinion is not subject to the "opinion immunity" whine.


EDIT::
good lighting is no more an opinion than gravity. It may vary from person to person based on eyesight, but it is a question of fact whether lighting is good enough for a person to comfortably read in. I incorrectly assumed you had good eyesight, but that still doesn't make it an opinion - it means I incorrectly assumed a fact that I shouldn't have based on the fact that I had never seen you wear glasses in any of your pictures in the Post Your Picture thread.

I think it's been established by now that Irock would buy a sun-dried turd if Steve Jobs was the one who shat it out, so there's really nothing more to say to him about this product. As for my opinions;

1. A Nook is the best e-book/pdf/cbz reading device available, so I'd rather have that for books.
2. It's too awkward to have for a music device, so I'd rather have an iPod.
3. No flash makes the internet boring and half as useful, so forget that.

My overall opinion is that this is something that three types of people will get: People that use material goods as status symbols, people with their mouths hermetically sealed to Steve Jobs' sphincter, and people too cheap and/or dumb to buy a real piece of electronics.

Phrasing a statement of fact as an opinion doesn't make it an opinion.  Through its structure, this is how your post logically reads:

I don't like books because they are heavier than an iPad and it is not easy to find good enough lighting. Therefore, the iPad is better for me.

In the above, "heavier than an iPad" and "not easy to find good enough lighting" are the reasons (factual basis) you preferred the iPad over a book (opinion). Those are not opinions. They are a factual basis for your opinion. Challenging the factual basis for an opinion is not subject to the "opinion immunity" whine.


EDIT::
good lighting is no more an opinion than gravity. It may vary from person to person based on eyesight, but it is a question of fact whether lighting is good enough for a person to comfortably read in. I incorrectly assumed you had good eyesight, but that still doesn't make it an opinion - it means I incorrectly assumed a fact that I shouldn't have based on the fact that I had never seen you wear glasses in any of your pictures in the Post Your Picture thread.

I already told you that I meant thick, not heavy. Get over it.

Good lighting is an opinion, because "good" is an opinion. There is no factual way to describe something as good. If you describe something as good, you're giving your opinion.

"This restaurant is good" - Opinion
"The president gave a good speech" - Opinion
"The lighting here is good" - Opinion

It's hilarious that you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion. Aren't you like 20?

My overall opinion is that this is something that three types of people will get: People that use material goods as status symbols, people with their mouths hermetically sealed to Steve Jobs' sphincter, and people too cheap and/or dumb to buy a real piece of electronics.

Oh, recommend an electronic that does everything the iPad does equally well or better.

... you're an idiot Irock.

To say something is good doesn't necessarily mean it's an opinion. Especially where "good" is used as a synonym for sufficient. To say "good lighting" in a context of reading, means that the lighting is sufficient for the purposes of reading. This means that your eyes will not be strained while reading in that lighting. Whether or not reading in a particular lighting will strain your eyes is a biological fact, not an opinion.

So by that logic, if Windows is sufficient for you and your needs, then the statement "Windows is good" is indeed a fact and not an opinion.

Apple marketing meeting


So guise, we need a new product to release for our sheep..

How 'bout a netbook? it's the most sensible option. After all, our smallest laptops sell the most. People love the small compact iphone but our most common complaints about it are that it's too locked down and restricted. An apple netbook (obviously we can't call it a "netbook", we need to be different, but we have another marketing department for that) would be right in the middle of these two products. Small and compact, powerful, (more) open and fully functional like our laptops.

Sounds good, though if we made a netbook we would have to sell it very cheap. We horrendously overprice our higher end laptops, but we just can't go charging more than $500 for an apple netbook!

Hmm..

Why don't we just make a huge iphone? Make it like a tablet. That company out there makes those "modbooks" and they're not doing that badly.

Somebody out there already does it? Well we can't then! We have to be hip and first to the post!

We could have it run the iphone OS then maybe? Hey, then we could keep the locked down style and make more profits! I mean, we suckered $50 billion out of our herd this year, in a recession! I should send a memo to steve, maybe he'll mention that in the keynote. Is he out of hospital yet?

Hey yeah, and if we just make it an oversized iphone we can manufacture it for alot less than a complete tablet and still sell it for a high price!

Yeah, but I'm still not happy with these profit margins, they're not large enough.. I want to make $100 billion next year, not $50bn!

We can add 40GB of flash memory and charge $200 extra for it? And put in a $15 3G chipset and charge $130 for it?

Yeah, they'll eat that right up. Ship it.




yeah I cant be bothered to write anymore :|

I think the touch screen tablet idea is nice, but not apple's implementation. It's way too closed. You are forced to use the app store. I find it genuinely funny that you cannot multi task. My phone was made in 2005 has a 70mhz processor IC and it can multi task such as playing music and running 3D java games.

I'd wait for a superior "copy" to come out that is open and has more freedom. It will be superior, and it will cost less. And it will have something so simple as a memory card slot. It's obvious why apple didn't put that in, you could just buy your own reasonably priced 64GB SDHC card and use that instead.

I think over 90% of applications are approved, and the large majority of applications that are denied are denied because of bugs. I really don't have any issues with the app store. I know everything there is going to work, and there's really not anything I want that I can't get from there.

About the multi-tasking. You don't seem to think you can play music and run other applications. You can play and change music from anywhere on the device. While multi-tasking would be nice in some instances, I rarely ever find myself needing or wanting it on my iPod Touch.

The device isn't without its downsides, but the pros outweigh the cons for me.

So by that logic, if Windows is sufficient for you and your needs, then the statement "Windows is good" is indeed a fact and not an opinion.

No, because it's uncontextualized and nobody would assume that good means "sufficient" if all that was stated was "Windows is good"

To say, "Windows is sufficient," is indeed a statement of fact which could then be rebutted. However, "Windows is good" alone is too ambiguous - you would not, without context, assume that good was to mean sufficient. Where it is clear that good does mean sufficient, however, then it is indeed a statement of fact, which can be proven or disproven because there is an objective marker for it to be measured by. It either does what you need it to do or it does not do what you need it to do.

In the case where you ae talking about reading and lamenting the light source, then it is clear that "good lighting" means "sufficient lighting for the purpose of reading". It is a statement of fact because it is true or false.

"Windows is sufficient" is a completely subjective statement and varies from person to person based on their own individual needs.

"Windows is sufficient for my needs" is a fact.

Yes, "Windows is sufficient" is competely subjective, but that doesn't mean it is a statement of opinion. "Windows is sufficient" is ambiguous because it does not specify an object; without a reference for the word sufficient, the statement has no meaning unless an object is implied. If someone says, "Windows is sufficient", then it only gains meaning if you imply an object. No matter what object you implied, however, it would be a statement of fact, either true or untrue. "Windows is sufficient (for all people)" (untrue). "Windows is sufficient (for me)" (likely true). "Windows is sufficient (for you)" (likely untrue).

The fact that "Windows is sufficient" is true or untrue depending on what object you imply doesn't make it an opinion.

Stop arguing semantics. It doesn't matter.

OK, but I suspect that will be at your loss since your inability to distinguish between an opinion and a fact is predicated on an inadequate understanding of the English language. Arguing semantics would likely benefit you in the future.

Your entire reasoning for arguing English semantics was to direct my attention away from your loss on the iPad related discussion.

let's all argue about a product that we all know is going to sell well regardless of its technological and massive functional downfalls.

If you don't want don't buy one.
If someone asks if they should buy one, and another device is better for them, then don't suggest it to them.
If someone buys it just because it has an apple logo, lol it up.
If someone buys it because they think it looks useful, whatever.
If someone can actually genuinely use it for something, or for some personal convenience and actually have a good reason for it, then shut up.

</neutrality>

I agree with NAMKCOR.

Your entire reasoning for arguing English semantics was to direct my attention away from your loss on the iPad related discussion.

That doesn't make any sense; I don't care at all about the iPad - I care that you accused me of "telling you your opinions were wrong" when I did no such thing. There is, in fact, a pertinent distinction between disputing the factual basis for an opinion and disputing something that is purely preferential. Without such a distinction, no logical debate on any issue whatsoever could occur. It is, in fact, the difference between a "you're wrong; no you're wrong" argument and a debate that actually has the potential of changing people's minds.

I resorted to semantics only because without an adequate knowledge of the English language, you seemed unable to grasp that difference, and I believe that it is an important difference.

You flat out told me that reading books off of an LCD is a terrible way to read a book.

Are you really this dumb?

Yes, I have been diagnosed with extreme mental retardation and my IQ is 64. And, quite frankly, I find your attitudes toward the mentally disabled to be discriminatory and worthy of sanction from the Human Rights commission.

More relevantly, I did state my opinion that reading a book off an LCD is a terrible way to read a book. That's still not telling you your preference was wrong, because again, you had not presented it as a preference. You presented it as an inference with an unsound factual basis. And yeah, I get that you meant thickness, but that has no relevance to my thought process when writing my original reply. Furthermore, from the way that you phrased it, I assumed your experience with reading books on an LCD screen was rather limited. If you had simply said, "I enjoy reading books off an LCD more than I do reading a hardcopy", then I would not have stated my opinion, since then it would be clear that it was a preference based on your own experience. As it is, I thought you had not read a book on an LCD before and your inference was solely based on the two factors you had listed. Given that, I thought it pertinent to state my own opinion based on my own experience reading off of screens and knowing that, due to the length, there is a substantial difference between reading a book off of a screen and reading any other text off a screen.

Anyway, it's pointless to argue with stubborn little children. So, I'm just going to say "you win"! Yay for Irock.

More relevantly, I did state my opinion that reading a book off an LCD is a terrible way to read a book. That's still not telling you your preference was wrong, because again, you had not presented it as a preference. You presented it as an inference with an unsound factual basis. And yeah, I get that you meant thickness, but that has no relevance to my thought process when writing my original reply. Furthermore, from the way that you phrased it, I assumed your experience with reading books on an LCD screen was rather limited. If you had simply said, "I enjoy reading books off an LCD more than I do reading a hardcopy", then I would not have stated my opinion, since then it would be clear that it was a preference based on your own experience. As it is, I thought you had not read a book on an LCD before and your inference was solely based on the two factors you had listed. Given that, I thought it pertinent to state my own opinion based on my own experience reading off of screens and knowing that, due to the length, there is a substantial difference between reading a book off of a screen and reading any other text off a screen.

I phrased it in a way that shouts "I don't like reading on paper and I prefer reading on LCD screens" It's not my fault you perceived it a different way than intended. You should call your own fault on this.

Why the fuck would I have a preference based on nothing?

Have fun carrying a man purse around.

I'll tape it to my chest.

Have fun carrying a man purse around.

It's not a purse, it's a satchel! Indiana Jones had one!

Firerain, before I met you, I was a one-man wolfpack. Then I met you and I said, "Could it be?" After that, I saw that my wolfpack had grown to 2. I was a wolfpack by myself, and then you were a wolf... you were in my wolfpack, too.

Wuddabout NW

Also as far as games are concerned (SJR on the last page), that's what Dual Boot is for.  OH LAWDY YOU HAVE TO RUN WINDOWS ON YOUR MAC AND SPEND 30 SECONDS BOOTING INTO IT TO PLAY A GAME.  not a big deal, people need to get over it.

I agree with everything you said, and I would actually buy a Macbook Pro if I had the money and would do exactly that.
There's no denying they make an awesome product (iMac, Macbook/Pro/Air), but come on, I was trolling... :\

* awkward pause....*


In related news, the Mircorsoft Courier looks very snazzy.

but come on, I was trolling... :\

* awkward pause....*

Look at all this garbage you caused, you dumb garbage man.

but come on, I was trolling... :\

* awkward pause....*

Look at all this garbage you caused, you dumb garbage man.

Guilty. 

Just for the record, reading books of LCD screens is a terrible way to read and I have absolutely no idea how you could prefer it.

I could have a painting/art application that takes full advantage of the multi-touch.

I don't see a professional using that and no standard user either unless they just wanted to waste their time with scribbles.

Wacom Tablet.

I think he was saying that no professional artist would buy an iPad if they wanted a tablet. Unless the artist was extremely pretentious, of course.

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

Because a 3.5 in 320×480 display isn't really practical for everything I use it for. As I said, more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/01/dear-apple-we-wanted-this-not-an-expensive-and-bulky-iphone/

The thing is really big; I don't see how it's more practical than a Touch, which fits in one's pocket.
Having to type on a thing that big would be impractical...

I think you got it confused... Having to type on that thing would be easy to use. Having to type on the iTouch is impractical, but people do it anyway.

I think you got it confused... Having to type on that thing would be easy to use. Having to type on the iTouch is impractical, but people do it anyway.

The touch is hardly impractical, it's very easy and ergonomic in fact.
Dude, look at the thing, it's mammoth; not to mention that landscape would be far to large for any normal human thumbs to stretch across and portrait can't be that much better on something that big.
The back is also rounded or something, meaning if you were to set it on a flat surface to type, it'd wobble.

EDIT: I also meant that it's far more easy to walk-and-type on something the size of a touch, rather than something the size of the ipad. ;3

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

Because a 3.5 in 320×480 display isn't really practical for everything I use it for. As I said, more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Like what?

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

Because a 3.5 in 320×480 display isn't really practical for everything I use it for. As I said, more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Like what?

On an iPod Touch you wouldn't be able to have much of a sheet music application, but on the iPad you could easily display pages of sheet music.

Adobe could create a version of Photoshop that isn't totally lacking in features like the one for the iPhone and iPod Touch. The reason it's so limited is because they can't really display everything.

iWork on the iPad couldn't have worked on a tiny screen.

Just about every application would be more useful if it were designed for the iPad's display. More contend could be displayed, and you'd have more to work with.

Productivity would be increased with a higher resolution. This is generally common knowledge, and the reason why most people prefer a 9 inch display over a 3 inch display, and a 23 inch display over a 19 inch display.

I think you got it confused... Having to type on that thing would be easy to use. Having to type on the iTouch is impractical, but people do it anyway.

The touch is hardly impractical, it's very easy and ergonomic in fact.
Dude, look at the thing, it's mammoth; not to mention that landscape would be far to large for any normal human thumbs to stretch across and portrait can't be that much better on something that big.
The back is also rounded or something, meaning if you were to set it on a flat surface to type, it'd wobble.

EDIT: I also meant that it's far more easy to walk-and-type on something the size of a touch, rather than something the size of the ipad. ;3

I never said that either was impractical. I said that typing is. Your specific example was that typing is more impractical on something larger than something smaller. Which makes no sense at all, since obviously there's more room to type and more space to place keys. You didn't say walk and type. Walking and typing is hard on the iTouch anyways unless you text or write so god damn much on the thing that you just happen to know where to push the keys in the correct order to form functioning sentences and not walking in to things or not having to look up every few letters.

So, still, you were confused in how you wrote that.

Woah man, take it down a notch; nobody is crucifying you.

I had meant an all around typing practicality, and I thought it was just assumed that in the first sentence I meant typing on the ipod touch because it was in reply to your comment about typing on it.
My point about thumb typing is simple logic: a keyboard that you operate with your thumbs would be more difficult to use the larger the keyboard is; the ipad is 9.56 inches in landscape-width, no human thumb could stretch half-way across that screen.

I do not see how I was confused when I wrote it. In fact I am pretty sure I said that it is a mammoth device and to type with it in either landscape or portrait would be difficult because no human thumb could comfortably operate it for a long while, and that if you were to lie it on a flat surface to type, it would be irritating because of its rounded back.

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

Because a 3.5 in 320×480 display isn't really practical for everything I use it for. As I said, more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Like what?

On an iPod Touch you wouldn't be able to have much of a sheet music application, but on the iPad you could easily display pages of sheet music.

Adobe could create a version of Photoshop that isn't totally lacking in features like the one for the iPhone and iPod Touch. The reason it's so limited is because they can't really display everything.

iWork on the iPad couldn't have worked on a tiny screen.

Just about every application would be more useful if it were designed for the iPad's display. More contend could be displayed, and you'd have more to work with.

Productivity would be increased with a higher resolution. This is generally common knowledge, and the reason why most people prefer a 9 inch display over a 3 inch display, and a 23 inch display over a 19 inch display.

The screen looks far too small to display sheet music to me.

Also, if you want something to do work on, get a netbook.

Yes, reading sheet music on a screen that small would be rather tedious I presume.
A 8.5x11in sheet of paper is just under 14in diagonally, as opposed to the ipad's 9.7 diagonal display. The sheet of music sitting next to me at the moment takes up just below 12in from the upper-left hand corner of staff to the bottom-right hand corner of the last bar and 7in across. The iPad is 7.47in across the entire surface.
Obviously that's a major drawback unless they make very few staffs per page displayed, which could be another major drawback.
I don't know about the glare, but if it's significant, you couldn't sight read from it.

In somewhat related news, the last time I played in a quartet the stupid ass first guitar didn't even wait for me to get settled before he started the cue, I couldn't even put my glasses on in time. Talk about a shitty and unprofessional leader. 
Here's to hoping I'm not stuck in any last minute quartets this year, I'd rather not be in any group than thrown in one with that guy again, especially on such sort notice (I only rehearsed with them three times, including the day-of).

What's the worst ensemble/orchestra you've ever played in?

I read sheet music from flash card sized paper. I'm poor. @:-]

 

I love how there's two totally irrelevant arguments going on simultaneously in here, all over one extremely insignificant product.

I love how there's two totally irrelevant arguments going on simultaneously in here, all over one extremely insignificant product.

>Implying it's irrelevant (to what, even?)
>Implying any Mac product is going to be insignificant

I love how you DERP.

irrelevant : they don't really matter at all as both are based on opinions and are thus subjective and unable to really provide real facts for, since they're subjective.

insignificant : doesn't matter what company something is made by, there's nothing significant about a large ipod touch.

irrelevant : they don't really matter at all as both are based on opinions and are thus subjective and unable to really provide real facts for, since they're subjective.

You're honestly saying that an argument with differing opinions is irrelevant? Irrelevant doesn't even make sense with what you're trying to say, anyway. Invalid, maybe. Still, I'm pretty certain an argument about whether or not Irock should waste his money on a $500 (or $600?) on a large iPod Touch isn't all that irrelevant or invalid. It seems to me like he could do everything he wants with his iPod Touch anyway, with the rest of the features being a novelty. Irock is my pal and I don't want to see him waste his money because he's a dumb apple fanboy. 

insignificant : doesn't matter what company something is made by, there's nothing significant about a large ipod touch.

You can miss the point if you like, but it's pretty clear that Apple products sell a fair bunch. It's also pretty clear to me that most people don't actually need these products, but simply buy them for the name/as a fashion accessory/etc. etc.. This is pretty annoying, really. It's also significant, since it's going to be pretty HUGE like every other Apple product when it's perhaps the crappiest (in terms of value) product they've put out yet.

Derp.

Allow me to offer this interesting diversion in order to change the subject:

Hello everyone. I'm a mediocre artist/composer/writer/pseudo-intellectual. I've never been very good at what I do, but recently I've discovered something wonderful. By transposing what little talent I have from my den's computer to an iPad at Starbucks, I've instantly become famous among the faggy neo-hipster crowd! It doesn't even matter that I'm working on an inferior piece of hardware, or that I'm just not very good to begin with. Thank you iPad!

Fucking sycophants.

Also, to say an iPad would "get you into reading" is retarded. Sorry, it just is. Buy a book.

God, look at all of you. It's just a stupid little gadget.

God, look at all of you. It's just a stupid little gadget.

^

God, look at all of you. It's just a stupid little gadget.

^

V

God, look at all of you. It's just a stupid little gadget.

haha stumbleupon, you dirty bitch

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnT0zp8Ya4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnT0zp8Ya4</a>

When I saw a picture that sad "9.99 each" I though, oh. That is cool. I might get one. Then I learned that was for the APPS, WTF?

Well, thank God we didn't lose THIS thread!

Apple, fail, troll, dumb, etc.

I think we're back to where we left off now.

I liked the old thread more