[Eug]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't think anyone's calling it a guaranteed success

Yes, some pretty much are actually.

It's as if any voiced reservation about the product is considered lunacy by some.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Not really, I was actually referring to a fact - that the absolute majority of people use CDs today and that the absolute minority of computer users use tablet PCs.

I wasn't responding to what you were saying, but the way you were saying it. I wasn't even stating my own position -- largely, because it is irrelevant for what I wanted to say.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Apple's tried a scaled down version of it and failed miserably, with the Newton. Then Apple tried again with the iPod touch and iPhone and was successful.

I don't necessarily think you can construe a line of "tablet computers" by starting with the Newton, then iPhone and iPad last.

IMO, the Newton shared a lot with the iPhone and iPod Touch, but the iPad is a departure from it.
It's NOT a pocket device, and it seems to be aimed at a less "geeky" clientele.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yes, some pretty much are actually.

It's as if any voiced reservation about the product is considered lunacy by some.

What you're missing is that those people you mention aren't necessarily talking about the iPad, specifically. iPad is the shape of computing for the masses.

In a couple years' time, you won't find anything *else* in the mainstream, while "real" computers will be as niche a market as, say, dedicated video editing systems are today.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't necessarily think you can construe a line of "tablet computers" by starting with the Newton, then iPhone and iPad last.

IMO, the Newton shared a lot with the iPhone and iPod Touch, but the iPad is a departure from it.
It's NOT a pocket device, and it seems to be aimed at a less "geeky" clientele.

-t

iPhone is intended as anything BUT a geek device. Remember the outcry at the lack of features at launch? Same as with iPod. Same with iPad.

People still have DVD players. People still have CD players.

[Big Mac]

Wait, wait, SH, you're saying that iPads and its knockoffs are going to take the market by storm so as to make full computers into a niche market? I find that very, very, very hard to believe.

The amount of people satisfied with only owning a netbook or an iPhone (now an iPad) and any similar limited computing device ONLY (owning no laptop or desktop) are a small niche part of the computing market right now. I don't expect that to change. It's certainly not in Apple's interest for that to happen, either.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Wait, wait, SH, you're saying that iPads and its knockoffs are going to take the market by storm so as to make full computers into a niche market? I find that very, very, very hard to believe.

I think you just connected two dots that don't belong together.

-t

[Big Mac]

That's not a summary of SH's claim? That iPads, iPad knock-offs, netbooks, iPhones and other such limited computing devices would largely replace the fully featured computer?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I think you just connected two dots that don't belong together.

Really? Did you read this

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

iPad is the shape of computing for the masses. In a couple years' time, you won't find anything *else* in the mainstream, while "real" computers will be as niche a market as, say, dedicated video editing systems are today.

I read that the same way as Big Mac. Basically, SH is suggesting in a couple of years most everybody will be using iPads and similar devices in lieu of 'regular' computers. And like Big Mac I find that very hard to believe.

In my line of work calculators are still very popular even though their demise has been predicted ever since the early 80s. Sure, computers have reduced their prevalence, but most people I work with still use them side by side with a computer. That's what I expect to see with iPad-like devices. I can see them becoming very popular companion devices and maybe they'll even be good enough to be the only "computer" for grandmas and 14 year olds, but I cannot see how they will actually replace so many computers so that those become "niche" devices. Definitely not within in a couple of years. In twenty, maybe. In a few, no.

[Eug]

I actually happen to agree with that claim... eventually... except I think the version 1 iteration of the iPad isn't going to be the machine accomplishing this, for various reasons.

I don't know if that will be in a couple of years (probably not) or in a decade or two, but everyday net access computers will get simpler IMO. It's the proverbial internet appliance.

However, all that said, I think it's not advisable to recommend the version 1 iPad to the masses as their primary internet device in 2010, because of its limitations. ie. 2010 is not 2015 or whatever. IMO, that's a pretty reasonable statement.

OTOH, some here seem to think we're insane for having reservations about the 2010 iPad.

[Big Mac]

Good calculator analogy, Simon.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

OTOH, some here seem to think we're insane for having reservations about the 2010 iPad.

I have the same problem. Even though I'm very interested in the iPad and I definitely am anxious to try it out, I am absolutely aware of the fact that's it's a generation 1 device and it's in its infancy in terms of hardware options and in terms of available software. But even the slightest mentioning of that seems to be met with mockery by the ThoughtPolice™. I complained about it already on page 1 and later on page 2 again (plus in another iPad thread). Either I'm not getting the point across or some people simply have little interest in keeping it factual.

What I'd like to see is something like this:
A: The iPad's the future. It's awesome. I'm getting it as soon as I can.
B: Hmm, I don't like xyz and I think uvw is missing.
A: Fair enough. Maybe that'll be in gen 2. I'm thrilled with it the way it is now. And 10 years from now I'm sure every other computer will be an iPad or an iPad knockoff.
B: Possible. What do you think it will need to gain to become that popular?
and so on...

But this thread has been more like:
A: The iPad's the future. It's awesome. I'm getting it as soon as I can.
B: Hmm, I don't like xyz and I think uvw is missing.
A: No, it's not missing. Nobody needs that. The iPad's the future.
B: Well, I need that. And without it the iPad is doomed.
A: The iPad's the future.
B: Maybe, but without feature xyz it won't sell in today's market.
A: Of course it will. The iPad's the future.
B: But what about today and-
A: The iPad's the future. That's why it'll sell. Don't believe me? Actually it will sell so well we won't be seeing anything else in five years time.
B: Nope. Without xyz it's going to be the Cube all over again.


The former could lead to an interesting discussion. The latter is predictable and dull.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I actually happen to agree with that claim... eventually... except I think the version 1 iteration of the iPad isn't going to be the machine accomplishing this, for various reasons.

So we agree.

So having established that, there's this:

Originally Posted by Simon

But this thread has been more like:
A: The iPad's the future. It's awesome. I'm getting it as soon as I can.
B: Hmm, I don't like xyz and I think uvw is missing.
A: No, it's not missing. Nobody needs that. The iPad's the future.
B: Well, I need that. And without it the iPad is doomed.
A: The iPad's the future.
B: Maybe, but without feature xyz it won't sell in today's market.
A: Of course it will. The iPad's the future.
B: But what about today and-
A: The iPad's the future. That's why it'll sell. Don't believe me? Actually it will sell so well we won't be seeing anything else in five years time.
B: Nope. Without xyz it's going to be the Cube all over again.

Which pretty much brings to a point what's going on.

I'm not saying "nobody needs that".

The assumption is that saying this thing will be a raving success, and that it's enough for 80% of the consumer market, is somehow implying that when the iPad goes on sale, it will instantly cause 600 million computer users to drop whatever they're using and buy one.

There's a couple of counter-assumptions on my part:

1) voodoo grossly overestimates the needs of the "average" user. This I see every day. Most users really don't want anything more than internet, e-mail, photos, and office. Oh, and iTunes for their iPods. How this last one will work (or whether at all, considering its heritage) with iPad is completely unclear.

2) The iPad is the first device of a whole industry - much like virtually every smartphone today (a mere three years after introduction) is fundamentally iPhone-derived, and every mouse-driven computer interface is Macintosh-derived.

3) Features will come.

4) Uptake won't be spontaneous, but grow over time (duh).

<6) There is no such thing as a "happy" netbook user, because netbooks suck at anything other than geek-toydom.

6) The non-geeks that bought netbooks are pretty much all potential iPad customers.

7) (tangential, and really irrelevant to the iPad) People who purchase and value optical media have dedicated devices to play them. For everybody else, the optical media will tend to have been ripped into the computer, and are no longer touched. The CD market has lost its relevance. The only thing keeping the DVD market alive is last-ditch price cuts and lack of bandwidth.

8) I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I believe the first colleges will start requiring (or at least recommending) iPads come autumn 2011 as textbook readers.

[Eug]

Spheric, actually my posts were specifically aimed at you, if you hadn't already guessed. You're the one going around telling everyone that XYZ is not needed and the gen 1 iPad is all that.

When the idea of n00bs in 2010 still needing some features the iPad doesn't offer was brought up, you suggested all those concerns were irrelevant. With your last post you now say that additional features will in fact be coming, and the market will have to change. I guess it isn't all that then in 2010, is it?

Glad you're finally coming around.

I do like your "<6)" statement though, as it does illustrate your dogmatic streak.

"<6) There is no such thing as a "happy" netbook user, because netbooks suck at anything other than geek-toydom."

[Spheric Harlot]

You don't think there's any truth to it, though?

[Eug]

I happen to have met happy netbook users who aren't actually geeks.

I'm not one of them though. The screen size doesn't bother me. The speed doesn't bother me either. In fact, my favourite Mac laptop of all time in terms of form factor is the 12 PowerBook, so the iPad's 1024x768 screen is fine. The only thing that really annoys me about most netbooks are the keyboards, but there are now a couple out there that have pretty good keyboards.

Mind you the ones with good keyboards aren't exactly cheap, which is why many n00bs just end up getting cheap 14" laptops instead, for close to the same price.

EDIT:

Maybe Spheric Harlot is correct. According to MacNN, I am now Clinically Insane.

[Arkham_c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

B: Nope. Without xyz it's going to be the Cube all over again.

I'd just throw it out there that (a) the Cube would have sold a ton if it'd been a lot cheaper, and (b) the Mac Mini is essentially a cheaper, uglier Cube.

I think we can all agree that the iPad cannot be all things to all people. For a lot of people, but not everyone, it can be the preferred companion device to go WITH your computer. For others, it cannot fulfill this role.

The question that ultimately remains is (a) is there even a market for a secondary device to go with your computer, (b) will enough people see the iPad fulfilling that role to make it a success and (c) will some of the features that make it too limiting for some users be addressed through hardware and software updates going forward?

I cannot answer (a) or (b), but undoubtedly if (a) and (b) prove true, then Apple will invest in ensuring that (c) comes true as well.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I wasn't responding to what you were saying, but the way you were saying it. I wasn't even stating my own position -- largely, because it is irrelevant for what I wanted to say.

So you were responding to how I was *writing* something... If you heard me actually *say* something, then the tone and way it was said was completely in your own private mind.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

1) voodoo grossly overestimates the needs of the "average" user. This I see every day. Most users really don't want anything more than internet, e-mail, photos, and office. Oh, and iTunes for their iPods. How this last one will work (or whether at all, considering its heritage) with iPad is completely unclear.

So your anecdotal experience trumps mine any day. You sure know how to construct a solid argument!

The average user wants to be able to play the latest games, do videochat and watch porn.

They will claim they need only 'internet, e-mail, photos and office', but really... who are they kidding. The iPad needs a killer-app.

It needs to be more than just a jack of many trades, inept at some and master of none. I really hope the iPad finds the killer-app, and it will be software related and maybe not even made by Apple.

As I said before, I'm cautiously optimistic, but for some reason I don't see how this is already a revolution. Tablet PCs have been around for years and they've all failed to create the niche they need to survive.

Final judgment either way is completely premature, though. I'd like Spheric to consider that fact and consider that bashing other people for not sharing your enthusiasm with weird comments like «you're not the target group for this product, so you don't understand» even though I feel this could be a good product for myself and am quite likely to buy it.

In other words: Stop presenting your opinions as facts and you can have a conversation.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

So your anecdotal experience trumps mine any day. You sure know how to construct a solid argument!

I'm in sales.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I'm in sales.

That is a good answer, because it works on many levels

[Spheric Harlot]

Heh. It does make it sound like I'm astro-turfing, doesn't it?

Nah, I just get loads of people who tell me exactly what they want a computer for, and the MacBook is just too much computer and too much money for quite a few of them.

[Simon]

I agree that probably +80% of generic home computer users will be happy with the web, email, iTunes, iPhoto, and a few games. And in that sense concluding that the iPad is just that and hence the perfect 'computer' for them is obvious.

But there's a fundamental difference between selling those folks an iPad and a cheap Dell box. Even though those users say that's all they want and most of the time it probably is, but what happens when eventually they want to do something just a bit beyond that? Maybe a little home video project? Or some simple web design? The important difference here is that the crappy Dell can be used for that. Sure, it'll be slow and the experience will probably suck but in the end people will be able to do it. The iPad is much more difficult. It's not meant to be expanded. And it's by far not as versatile as a generic PC or Mac. Is it now still good enough to be their only device?

The issue I see here is that if the iPad gets a reputation that it's a nice gadget, but ultimately just not a real replacement for the cheap Dell, it will be forced to sell as a companion device. And then you're back to finding reasons why in addition to a computer and a smartphone people should also buy a $500-$900 tablet. Not geeks (because they'll do it), but just regular people. And that's the same battle PC tablet manufacturers have been fighting (and losing) over the last two or three years. Sure iPad OS will be loads better than Windows on a tablet, but will it be that much better to get people to spend another $700 on a gadget they might not really need?

[Phileas]

Simon, that's not the point and that's not where the iPad competes. I don't understand why people continue to make these comparisons.

Repeat after me: The iPad is not a computer, the iPad is an applicane. An appliance that is easy to use, much easier than a computer.

My parents are prime candidates for an iPad. They are scared of computers. As far as they are concerned computers are hard to use. Computers break. Computers get viruses that they don't understand. Computers need updating and are scary. Computers are controlled with mice and keyboards and my mother for example doesn't feel comfortable using either.

The iPad is easy. You point at the screen, it works. You press a button, Skype launches. You press the screen again, a call starts. They can handle that level of complexity. They will never, ever edit video and if they do they would be intelligent enough to realize that the iPad is not the tool for it.

[Eug]

^^^ You'll just have to hope the iPad can function well completely without another computer then.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

^^^ You'll just have to hope the iPad can function well completely without another computer then.

That is really the big unknown, yes.

[Simon]

I'm a bit confused. A moment ago the iPad was going to be the device for everybody minus a few geeks. But now I'm reading it's going to cater to people who are afraid of computers and want an appliance instead. So what's it going to be? Because one device sure cannot cater to both those crowds at the same time.

But for the sake of the argument, let's assume for a moment the iPad will cater to people who don't want a computer but an appliance. Then let me ask how many of those people are there actually? How many people don't have a computer, are actually afraid of getting one, but will now get an iPad instead? And how many of them will be alive ten years from now? Now assuming there's a substantial amount of such people the next question is, are those the people Apple wants to sell to? Are those the people who buy lots of apps and accessories? Are those the people that go out and replace their device with a new one every other year? In short, are those the kind of folks that drive revenue?

Ironically I'm starting to get the impression that in the end the device will appeal most to geeks. Not because it's a computer replacement, but because it's fun and it is special. And of course because ultimately it's inexpensive if you already spent $299 on a smartphone, $100 per month on cellular bills and +$1k on a new computer every (other) year. But I have trouble seeing this become a mass product the way iPods did. And before someone jumps on me, let me make clear that I'm not saying it's a failure if it doesn't become as popular as the iPod. I just can't see it be the same kind of success the iPod was. At least not in its current stage. OTOH what I'm sure will happen is that the iPad will change the tablet and netbook market for good. Netbooks will be forced to remain <$400 as a consequence become even suckier. Tablets will have to evolve in terms of software. This notion that you can shoehorn a desktop OS onto a tablet computer is definitely history. And with iPhone OS and the App Store Apple definitely has a lead here.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

^^^ You'll just have to hope the iPad can function well completely without another computer then.

No question if you compare it to a cheap Dell box with Windows.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

^^^ You'll just have to hope the iPad can function well completely without another computer then.

That's a real issue, and the ability seems unlikely in version one.

As someone who had some discussion in a few of the other threads, I think it's very justified to have reservations about this thing. I just don't understand why some of you don't see the potential both in software and future hardware revisions. It'll get better. Judging from Apple's aggressive pricing, this thing is going to get the kind of attention and improvements the Apple TV lacked. It'll get more than a year on the market before it gets canned (if its a failure).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I just don't understand why some of you don't see the potential both in software and future hardware revisions.

I agree with that. I definitely also see a huge potential for this device.

So let's discuss this potential. In which areas do you think Steve will be willing to make changes? There are quite a few things we can probably agree Steve will not allow. Opening up the device (App Store) is most likely not going to happen. Adding extra hardware interfaces is probably also not going to happen. What about diversifying? Do you think the iPad will evolve into several different devices within the same iPad OS family like the iPods did? And what about the enterprise market? Will there be an iPad version for businesses? What about things like handwriting recognition? Scanning (assuming we'll get a camera [with a macro])? OCR? What about making the device entirely independent of a computer? And will the device actually eventually become the terminal to the Apple cloud?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I'm a bit confused. A moment ago the iPad was going to be the device for everybody minus a few geeks. But now I'm reading it's going to cater to people who are afraid of computers and want an appliance instead. So what's it going to be? Because one device sure cannot cater to both those crowds at the same time.

There are several conflated ideas here, and they're being munged about quite a bit.

iPad is a concept that will replace virtually all low-end computing.

iPad is a v1 product probably decidedly lacking in features at this preview stage, and a lot of open questions.

[The Final Dakar]

My first thought is the webcam everyone has been quick to cite has to come eventually, right? I'm not sure how the iPad would evolve into several different devices, but if there are good sensible ideas out there, it seems very possible (see the 3G differentiation).

iPad for businesses... well, it would seem unlikely based on Apple's past, but it makes sense (Someone mentioned uses in the medical field).

Making the device capable of working independent of a computer seems like a must to me. I thought about giving one to my mother, but then realized I'd need to sync it to something to set-up properly (or at least, easily).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

iPad is a concept that will replace virtually all low-end computing.

That's an interesting point. If the iPad (or similar concepts) indeed take over low-end computing, it's quite likely that market will end up needing a 'Macintosh'. What I'm trying to say is that the type of device that can take over the low-end computing market will likely not be the same device that people who are still afraid of computers will want to get. So is there reason to believe the iPad can be both? Or will the iPad evolve into a family with different devices that cover both ends of the spectrum?

These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm curious what you guys think. I'm not certain about anything at this point.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Simon 

That's an interesting point. If the iPad (or similar concepts) indeed take over low-end computing, it's quite likely that market will end up needing a 'Macintosh'. What I'm trying to say is that the type of device that can take over the low-end computing market will likely not be the same device that people who are still afraid of computers will want to get. So is there reason to believe the iPad can be both? Or will the iPad evolve into a family with different devices that cover both ends of the spectrum?

These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm curious what you guys think. I'm not certain about anythin

I don't understand.

The iPad *is* that 'Macintosh'.

That's the basic point I've been trying to make in the past sixty posts.

[Simon]

So essentially you believe the iPad will be able to take over low-end computing and at the same time cater to folks who are afraid of computers?

The way I see it you can make a device that's great for people afraid of computers but that device will not appeal to more savvy users who want just a cheap computer. OTOH you can make a great low-end computer replacement iPad but then it'll likely still scare those who are afraid of computers today. I don't see how in today's world one device can satisfy both camps.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's a real issue, and the ability seems unlikely in version one.

As someone who had some discussion in a few of the other threads, I think it's very justified to have reservations about this thing. I just don't understand why some of you don't see the potential both in software and future hardware revisions. It'll get better. Judging from Apple's aggressive pricing, this thing is going to get the kind of attention and improvements the Apple TV lacked. It'll get more than a year on the market before it gets canned (if its a failure).

I see great potential. In fact, I think it's foolish not to. Like I've said before, the pad computing paradigm has been forecast by just about everyone, for just about forever. It's not like those who think the low end computing/appliance market going this direction is actually telling us anything new.

However, what I have also been saying all along is that version 1 of the iPad in 2010 is not the machine to accomplish that, in that it's not so revolutionary that suddenly all the n00bs are going to ditch their cheap computers right away, esp. since iPad is missing a couple of things that lots of n00bs like.

Originally Posted by Simon 

The way I see it you can make a device that's great for people afraid of computers but that device will not appeal to more savvy users who want just a cheap computer. OTOH you can make a great low-end computer replacement iPad but then it'll likely still scare those who are afraid of computers today. I don't see how in today's world one device can satisfy both camps.

Actually, I think the iPhone satisfies both camps in the phone world. It's a smartphone that's more powerful than most previous smartphones, but is easy to use and loved by n00bs. That is what the iPad aspires to be for low end computing, but I don't think it has achieved that just yet.

[Simon]

Eug, for smartphones I agree. The iPhone seems to bridge quite well between the two camps.

OTOH I think tablets/slates are a different issue because the challenge there is not so much about being powerful (in the smartphone sense), but about being cheap yet 'good enough'.

But like you, I believe the 1G iPad hasn't achieved that (yet). I think it caters better to the n00b camp. But it definitely has the potential to also cater to the low-end computing crowd. I tend to favor the idea of an iPad family. Similar to the iPods. Different devices with different focus. A grandma iPad and a netbook-killer iPad.

[Big Mac]

You really think there's enough room in Apple's lineup for specialized iPads? What would the netbook-killer iPad look like?

[Eug]

Apple already has SIX versions of the iPad. I think that's a big enough number for the near future.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I see great potential. In fact, I think it's foolish not to. Like I've said before, the pad computing paradigm has been forecast by just about everyone, for just about forever. It's not like those who think the low end computing/appliance market going this direction is actually telling us anything new.

However, what I have also been saying all along is that version 1 of the iPad in 2010 is not the machine to accomplish that, in that it's not so revolutionary that suddenly all the n00bs are going to ditch their cheap computers right away, esp. since iPad is missing a couple of things that lots of n00bs like.

I think at this point we're going in circles clarifying minute but ultimately pointless details. I don't think we're that far apart in our opinion of the iPad, aside from I want one and you don't.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Simon 

So essentially you believe the iPad will be able to take over low-end computing and at the same time cater to folks who are afraid of computers?

Huh?

This is one and the same market, if you define "afraid of" as "disinclined towards owning, operating and maintaining one if they could possibly avoid it".

Much of the low-end market (and netbooks, and, in fact, the MacBook) is people grudgingly accepting that they need a PC to do communications stuff and word processing.

[Simon]

Nope. I can clearly see two separate markets there.

[polendo]

People who are afraid of something (in this case a computer) certainly are not going to shop around and see if this particular device do not scare them. Common sense above all.

The iPad, in my humble opinion, will be bought by those people who like reading the news, magazines, reading an ebook, listening to music, watching videos & movies and even play an arcade game with the Macintosh look and feel (easiness comes to mind). Whatever the market it is. Can a niche market be created on professional fields? easily on anything that requires and uses databases and movility is a must. Will it be restricted to what Apple feels like authorizing?.. you bet and part of the earnings of everything created for the iPad are going their way.

When the original iPod came I didn´t bought one because for me it was a super size walkman at a super size price. But when they added up stuff like podcasts I was immediately sold and bought one.

In this case the iPad does everything that i might want to do and I´m going to buy one (wifi version.. still unsure if I go with 16 or 32 GB).

[Arkham_c]

I'm not a noob user, and I want an iPad. I've got a Mac Pro, and my wife has a Windows laptop. The iPad will replace neither all the time, but it will likely take time away from both. The Mac Pro is chained to my desk (figuratively). The laptop is relatively slow, and Windows is a pain to use. The iPad will be the ideal email and web tool, which is mostly what I want it for. If I can watch movies on it in bed and play a game in the car now and then while my wife drives, so much the better.

As an aside, my Mac Pro has an iSight web cam attached, and I pretty much never use it. Turns out that even though I am geeky enough to have it working, nobody that I want to see remotely is.

[kman42]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Nope. I can clearly see two separate markets there.

You are right that they are two separate markets, defined by different attributes, but I think they can be addressed by the same device. I think there are actually three markets, that I will outline below.

1) What are the needs of people who want a low-end computer to supplement an existing desktop PC? It needs to perform basic tasks, like email, web, video, well. It doesn't need to edit video, do photoshop, or other cpu-intensive tasks that benefit from a large monitor. Other, more complex tasks will be done better on a desktop.

2) What about people who need a laptop? Well, a LOT of these people need a laptop so that they can communicate effectively while traveling, do some light word-processing, spreadsheet work, presentations, until they get back to the office. The iPad is perfect for this. Traveling photographers will want a real laptop. People who travel a LOT and do most of their work (not including email) on their laptop will want a more powerful laptop with a big screen, certainly not a netbook.

3) And finally, people who don't like computers, don't understand them, or just want the computer to work. These people probably don't want to do any cpu-intensive tasks and wouldn't know how if they did. They will be extremely happy with the iPad.

I fall into categories 1 and 2. I currently use my iPhone to browse the web, email, etc from the couch or the bed while my wife is on the computer. The iPad would be a great replacement for that purpose. I use my aging PowerBook G4 exclusively for giving presentations that I create on my desktop PCs. My wife uses the same computer to watch videos on occasion. Again, the iPad is a perfect replacement.

My parents are great example of category 3. They own a Mac and a laptop. They use both mainly for email, web, etc. They do some light iPhoto and periodically my dad uses Bento for inventory at a museum he works at. Again, the iPad is a perfect replacement. It can do all of this (I'm pretty sure there will be an iPad Bento app shortly).

So, as far as I can tell, you are right that there are multiple distinct markets, but large swaths of each of these markets would be well served by the iPad.

[Veltliner]

Any new device has to be very practical in at least one way to become very successful.

iPods are just great for music listening, which made them so successful. iPhones have a lot of functions and can be pocketed easily.

What could be the practical strong point of the iPad that people will want one?

1. Will people want to read newspapers and books on the iPad?

2. How good will the built-in keyboard be? Will it work for writing longer texts or will it just be OK for short emails?

3. How exactly will the "portable multimedia" aspect fit into people's lives? Will the storage space be enough to respond to such a demand?

and in regard to future upgrades:

4. Will people miss the ability to browse the web and listen to their music at the same time? (Multitasking as a firmware upgrade or - we have seen this before - do you have to buy a new iPad to get this ability later on?)

5. Would handwriting recognition make the iPad more attractive, as you could really use it like a pad, but with pictures?

[Spheric Harlot]

Re: 4 - why would the iPad have less functionality than an iPhone and touch? Music keeps playing unless interrupted by a call or an app that takes over the audio (though apps can even start the iPod - for in-game audio - and it will keep playing after you quit the App).

5.) Quite possibly useless. Typing, even on a virtual keyboard, will probably be an order of magnitude faster.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

5. Would handwriting recognition make the iPad more attractive, as you could really use it like a pad, but with pictures?

Handwriting recognition, in all its iterations over the years, has never been successful. Even on Palm products, who sort of had a monopoly on it in years ago, it was a nuisance at best.

There is no way you're ever gonna be as fast writing than typing, even if typing is on a virtual keyboard.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

There is no way you're ever gonna be as fast writing than typing, even if typing is on a virtual keyboard.

-t

Agreed. In technology terms, the keyboard is beyond ancient. But, there's a reason it's still around: it's damn fast. So far, the only form of data input that's achieved a better combination of speed, accuracy and legibility than a QWERTY keyboard has been a Dvorak keyboard.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Handwriting recognition, in all its iterations over the years, has never been successful. Even on Palm products, who sort of had a monopoly on it in years ago, it was a nuisance at best.

Palm didn't have "handwriting" recognition, it had recognition of a symbolic language that *you* had to learn first. But yeah, true.