I feel the same thing as well, I don't know how I can use it. I do not read that much but I listen to a lot of audio books, so the iPhone fits me perfectly already.
One unacceptable factor about the iPad is the requirement to return to the mother to sync. iPad itself is already a huge computer, and it requires me to get another computer to sync with it? I was complaining about the iPhone not being able to download podcasts with iphone that is not broadcast in iTune (just a self hosting rss feed) and now, the huge iPad need another computer to pair it with which is almost unacceptable. On Mar 26, 5:40 pm, Phil <[email protected]> wrote: > Much as I admire the iPad as a piece of technology I don't see it > being terribly influential of itself (aside of sprouting a number of > clones, that is). It's never going to sell in numbers big enough to > influence the use (or otherwise) of Flash on the web beyond a few > headline sites that 'have to' be seen to work. The iPhone has never > supported Flash but I don't see the big brands adapting sites to work > with the iPhone on any kind of large scale. > > I was listening to this week's MacCast, and I respect the Mac Geek but > he actually said "I've ordered an iPad but I don't know what I'm going > to use it for yet". Which kind of sums up how I feel about it. There's > no unique selling point (no, the iBook store isn't it). Everything you > can do on an iPad you can do on something half the price (which by the > way will also run Flash and JavaFX). The iPad is a rich man's > electronic equivalent of a coffee table book. > > As a technophile I'd be happy to play with one but the thought of > spending £450 or thereabouts for the base model appals me - my wife's > Dell Inspiron 1525 cost less than that and it's not a 'closed shop' > experience - however good that experience is. The iPhone has a clear > purpose, does it well, and the walled garden is so big you don't > really notice the walls. The iPad is a computer, not a phone, and the > garden looks a whole lot smaller with something that powerful. > > If anything, the idea that Apple may try to control what we read could > only have a negative impact. The company has already lost my respect > with it's inconsistent approach to application approval and unilateral > pulling of previously approved software. If there is even a whiff of > censorship around the written word then people will turn on the > company - an American company not defending free speech?!. An open > device with parental controls (but not censorship) could have a rosy > future, but handled wrongly the iPad could turn into another Newton. > > On Mar 26, 4:29 pm, OldFatGit <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "If Apple’s iPad has the effect on our print reading matter in the way > > iTunes did on our music consumption, Apple could wind up the dominant > > channel by which we get published “print” information. > > > That’s why the issue of Apple picking and choosing what we can and > > can’t read is so disturbing. If they’re forcing magazines to edit > > their contents in order to get distribution, then whatever Apple’s > > then-current (and thus far completely arbitrary) rules would determine > > what you get to read. > > > It might even determine the political, religious, or ideological slant > > of what you’re permitted to read." > > > read on here:http://government.zdnet.com/?p=8356&tag=wrapper;col1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
