iPad: Your thoughts?

[Chyron8472]

I know it's not out yet, but family was having a discussion about it last week.

From what I've read, the starting price for the iPad is $500, which doesn't include 3G cell capability. For that, it costs $150 more ($650 total,) for the device and $15/month for service. You don't use the 3G for a phone, but rather for access to the net.
....

First, let me comment about how people are talking about the iPad vs. Kindle. My wife and I have a Kindle, and let me tell you that it's much more like reading a book than staring at a computer. That means that you can read for hours and not get eyestrain. With that in mind, I think the iPad would be a bad ebook reader because staring at your iPhone/iPod Touch for hours would give you a headache, I would think. Not to mention the Kindle's battery life lasts for days and weeks, not hours.


Second, it's no more than a giant iPod Touch with 3G access. That's all. It's like a tablet PC with the iPhone OS. Why would any current iPhone/iPod user buy one?


...My Dad says that he thinks it's going to be a big flop. What do you all think?

[Jake]

iPad starts at $500.

The iPad might wobble out of the gate, but I think pick-up-and-use computers which can also modularly couple with other things and serve other functions, like hte iPad, have a shot at being a big thing. That's my opinion at least.

[Absulute]

It's a big iPod. Nothing more. Certainly not the revolutionary device apple are claiming.

[Remolay]

Like I've said before. I knew from the first rumours that it was going to be a giant iPod, lucky guess there.

Overall for me I'd say that the iPad Exactly Meets Expectation

[GinnyN]

Probably I'm actually the only one who thinks that, but an IPad is an Netbook made easier. I mean, the IPhone is great and all, but is way too small for certain people, just like my parents, and the IPad + a normal cellphone with BIG numbers will work better for them. My mom loves to read the newspaper in the computer at work, but she doesn't like get out of the bed in the weekends and I found the Netbooks way too small for her. Appart, she only want to read the newspapers and check her email, a Netbook with it's way too small keyboard which probably she doesn't gonna use too much and way too small, for her, screen is not going to be any better for what she wants a netbook, while an IPad, yes, that will work for her.

I think an IPad is good for people who can't use or doesn't want use an IPhone or IPod (If the IPad address the complain they had with the IPhone, that it), and I think that actually is what Apple want.

[Strong Bad Fan]

It's pretty much just a Big Expensive iPhone that doesn't make calls.

[Rather Dashing]

It's pretty much just a Big Expensive iPhone that doesn't make calls.
It does if you have the Skype app.

[Strong Bad Fan]

It does if you have the Skype app.

So then it's a Big more Expensive iPhone that makes calls if you download an App.

Something in that Sentence isn't right.

[Rather Dashing]

So then it's a Big more Expensive iPhone that makes calls if you download an App.

Something in that Sentence isn't right.
...the Random capitalization? That seems To be something That isn't Quite Right.

[Chyron8472]

So then it's a Big more Expensive iPhone that makes calls if you download an App.

Sure, someone could maybe use that in their house on a table, but could you imagine someone walking down the street, talking into an iPad as they hold it up to their face? The thing is 9.5"x 7.5"...

I can imagine it, and in my imagination it looks retarded.

[Avistew]

Funny, just yesterday I was talking about that.
A coworker of my husband's was interested in getting an ebook reader, but she said the iPad might work better for her because she wants to highlight stuff (she want eto use it with etextbooks mostly).
I made a comment that she'd be better off getting an ebook reader that has that option (and they exist, even some with the option to take notes and stuff).

So it's funny you should start a thread about the iPad and compare it to ebook readers as well.

Anyway, I have no interest in the stuff but I'm not sure it will fail. Apple has a good history of selling expensive stuff with less functionality than the cheaper options.

[PariahKing]

It's like a primitive version of a product that will one day actually be worth owning.

[Katsuro]

*obligatory female hygiene product joke*

That being said, I'm not a big fan of having something that is meant to resemble a tablet computer, but isn't able to do multitasking. Apart from that the missing flash thing kind of scares me off. I don't care if its the worst that ever happened to the internet. It is part of the internet.
Last but not least if the iPad works like the iPod Touch or the iPhone you have to synch your Apps through iTunes, which also means that Apple will have, once again, complete control over what they want on their gadget and what not.

Time and dropping prices will tell if its awesome or not I guess.

[natlinxz]

My thoughts on not having flash:
1) Flash on an apple device has always sucked, adobe needs to get a decent unix team together before they expect to be developing for portable apple computers.
2) Most people only ever use flash for youtube, and
3) all the good flash games are Apps anyway.

[Katsuro]

My thoughts on not having flash:
1) Flash on an apple device has always sucked, adobe needs to get a decent unix team together before they expect to be developing for portable apple computers.
2) Most people only ever use flash for youtube, and
3) all the good flash games are Apps anyway.

I will be a happy human being once laypeople understand that flash is capable of so much more than showing video on websites or small minigames.

[Jake]

I will be a happy human being once laypeople understand that flash is capable of so much more than showing video on websites or small minigames.

I will be a happy human being once 80% of the stuff commonly built in flash is moved over to html 5!

[Katsuro]

I will be a happy human being once 80% of the stuff commonly built in flash is moved over to html 5!

Since I have no idea what I talk about, I quote something of the internet which I heard from a few people.
Sure, it could be them being butthurt that S.J. trashtalks "their" thing, but on the other side it could hold a grain of truth as well.

When Steve J. made the comments about HTML5 being the future, he didn't bother to explain that this statement really refers to the most widespread use of Flash today, that being Video. Perhaps he didn't explain this purposely, so that many misinformed end users who want to watch Hulu on their iPhones would unleash their rage against Flash. Which is exactly what has been happening..It is annoying and I lost respect for Steve.

The HTML5 stack (html, css and JS) will NOT be a direct replacement for Flash. I have been developing Flash content for over 10 years, I am also very competent in JS. I cringe thinking about using JS for tasks where ActionScript can accomplish the same thing in 50% less code. There are tasks that will be very difficult if not impossible to achieve with JS and CSS. For rudimentary animations and JQuery-like functionality, sure, HTML5 can be a viable option instead Flash. But for complex games and RIAs, I just don't see it. Actionscript has evolved into a robust, full featured language.

The other important thing is that the Flash player is updated by Adobe periodically to address any issues that may arise. How will they update/improve HTML5 spec if it becomes the norm and Flash went bye-bye?? They won't. You have to wait for HTML6 and all the browsers to support it. Which means you end up waiting 5-10 years. Great way to bring us back to 1998. No thanks, I'll stick with Flash for now.

As much as open standards are a worthy goal, I don't see this panning out the way they are saying...

[GinnyN]

About flash: Once I did a Webpage for my University, with the help of a desingner which was pretty good at his things in flash. He made a couple of pretty neat effect with it, while I tried to keep the rest of the updatable parts with php and some JS Scripts I downloaded somewhere else.

What's happened? For some reason some people, apparently from their computers at work, cannot enter to the page because they can't install flash in their computers (Mostly because the politics at work don't allow them) and I had to change all the neat effects with some Javascripts I found and some imitiation with CSS.

And that's why I mostly avoid use Flash in some webpages right now: It's reducing the ammount of people who can watch the site, and, considering that page was been using as well to promote the initiative to possible Sponsors, that become critical. It's true you can do a ton of neat stuff with flash, but, in some cases like this one, is just bothersome. (And they don't have to install the javascript console, it's comes with the browser!)

[Jake]

I'm more than aware that there are a ton of things which Flash does as a platform that HTML 5 does not / can not do. There is plenty, however, that can be done with an HTML/js framework which is done in Flash out of habit. I don't like that Flash is closed and based on 3rd party commercial plugin support. I don't particularly like that Apple is deciding to not support it, but I like that less than the fact that before Apple gets to make that choice, Adobe has to decide to support the platform in the first place. With HTML that isn't an issue. Things like this (http://www.panic.com/blog/2010/03/the-panic-status-board/), including all animation and artwork, are being built in what is straight up standards HTML or with elements which are on their way to being ratified as standards. I much prefer that future, where a web of that level of visual intricacy, can be viewed by anyone who writes a standards-compliant viewer, and not by a private company.

You can't do very complicated games in HTML right now, but people are doing things very reminiscent (http://mrgan.tumblr.com/post/257187093/pie-guy) of early Flash games using HTML 5. I don't expect HTML to fully replace Flash, but I do expect Flash's prominence on the web to lessen significantly, and for it to take up a sort of hybridized place between the web and desktop apps (which seems to be where Adobe is trying to take it as well, with things like Adobe Air).

[Rather Dashing]

HTML5 is great and all, but Flash is a practical reality of a large portion of the web now, and when buying a product I like to think of how it will benefit me now, not only on some hypothetical(probable or otherwise) future that may or may not come within the lifetime of the device. Yes, you have to consider the future within the life of the device when buying a new product. But banking on "It will become a good product later or "It will be more capable later when the world adapts to it(however indirectly)" seems foolish.

Some of the ideas of the iPad are neat, but the implentation leaves a lot to be desired, I think. I want multitasking, I want a(relatively) open platform, and I want the internet to "just work", without relying on the web to change for my sake.

[mouseykins]

Every time I see an iPad thread on this forum, I'm excited that we might discuss Telltale games running on it. Playing Monkey Island on the iPhone is reasonably fun, but the extra screen real estate of an iPad would seem to be ideal for Telltale games.

I, for one, would love to play Sam & Max on a tablet like the iPad. And with Telltale's recent wholehearted support for the Mac, surely iPad versions of Telltale games must be a realistic possibility when the iPad user base picks up?

[Friar]

I know a fair few people who are getting one, and i have asked each one of them one question. Why? Noone has given me an answer yet other than "dunno" or words to that affect. That is the power of apple.

[OMA]

I, for one, would love to play Sam & Max on a tablet like the iPad. And with Telltale's recent wholehearted support for the Mac, surely iPad versions of Telltale games must be a realistic possibility when the iPad user base picks up?

It seems you got your wish granted ;)

[Thriftweed Fancy Pants]

Some of the ideas of the iPad are neat, but the implentation leaves a lot to be desired, I think. I want multitasking, I want a(relatively) open platform, and I want the internet to "just work", without relying on the web to change for my sake.

I agree with this. But I also think that in order to support the ideas for further development, there has to be support for the early implementation of those ideas.

I know a fair few people who are getting one, and i have asked each one of them one question. Why? Noone has given me an answer yet other than "dunno" or words to that affect. That is the power of apple.

There's nothing terrible about trying out something unknown. If they don't like it, they can sell it. At least they're not saying, "Because it's magical!"

[GuruGuru214]

The chances of me buying one are zero, unless I win the lottery and have more money than I know what to do with (the chances of which are also zero, since I don't play the lottery). It's cool and all, but it's a very low priority for me. I'd sooner buy myself a new iPod Classic to replace my old one. On the other hand, if I were to win one or otherwise acquire one for free, I almost certainly would keep it, at least until I tried it out.

I know a fair few people who are getting one, and i have asked each one of them one question. Why? Noone has given me an answer yet other than "dunno" or words to that affect. That is the power of apple.

I get the same sort of answers when I try asking people why they liked Avatar.

[Ray-The-Sun]

No flash = No canabalt = No purchase.

I just thought of an idea for a (potentially damaging) app for it; a coaster app that lights up a ring around the base of your drink. Think about it.

[Visstix]

I hoped people were smarter then buying this useless.. thingy. and then I saw the people waiting in line.

[Jake]

No flash = No canabalt = No purchase.

I just thought of an idea for a (potentially damaging) app for it; a coaster app that lights up a ring around the base of your drink. Think about it.

What? Canabalt was designed as an iPhone game. I play it there all the time.

Flash isn't supported within the iPhone OS's web browser, but people use Flash to compile standalone games for it. Canabalt was one of the first.

[natlinxz]

Aside from the amount of flash content on the web that won't be compatible, HTML5 is much, much better than flash for the iPad. Here's a quick comparison: Flash 10 (the latest version of flash) can just barely run the original DOOM. HTML5, on the other hand, can run Quake 2! That's a pretty big difference if you ask me. I'm not saying that the iPad will be running Quake 2 any time soon, but think about how quickly HTML5 will become mainstream with that kind of potential.

[Rather Dashing]

Aside from the amount of flash content on the web that won't be compatible, HTML5 is much, much better than flash for the iPad. Here's a quick comparison: Flash 10 (the latest version of flash) can just barely run the original DOOM. HTML5, on the other hand, can run Quake 2! That's a pretty big difference if you ask me. I'm not saying that the iPad will be running Quake 2 any time soon, but think about how quickly HTML5 will become mainstream with that kind of potential.
I'm not going to spend half a grand on a device that will work perfectly in a hypothetical future, no matter how likely that future may be. I like my consumer devices to work really well now.

[Chyron8472]

People on here are mentioning how playing adventure games on the iPad might be cool, but I assume that means they'd like playing them on a device with a touch-screen.

Why then wouldn't someone buy a small tablet pc instead of an iPad? That would make a heck of a lot more sense.

[Leak]

Aside from the amount of flash content on the web that won't be compatible, HTML5 is much, much better than flash for the iPad. Here's a quick comparison: Flash 10 (the latest version of flash) can just barely run the original DOOM. HTML5, on the other hand, can run Quake 2! That's a pretty big difference if you ask me. I'm not saying that the iPad will be running Quake 2 any time soon, but think about how quickly HTML5 will become mainstream with that kind of potential.
Comparing apples to oranges, eh?

The recent HTML5 Quake2 "port" relies on WebGL for the rendering (i.e. it's using OpenGL) so it's performance is no big surprise.

The flash DOOM port does the rendering all by itself, like the original DOS version did, with no hardware acceleration at all... and still manages to run at 30 FPS here, so "can barely run the original DOOM" is quite inaccurate.

np: Bomb The Bass - Beat Dat (Freestyle Scratch Mix) (Into The Dragon)

[natlinxz]

Why then wouldn't someone buy a small tablet pc instead of an iPad? That would make a heck of a lot more sense.

Here's my point, simply put: Tablet PCs suck.

Windows 7 (or vista, or XP) was never meant to be run on a multi-touch interface. On that note, 99.9% of Windows Applications weren't meant to be run on a multi-touch interface. The iPhone OS (and every last one of it's programs) was designed from the ground up for enhanced multi-touch manipulation of it's features. I've used a Windows Tablet PC before, and it was the most unpleasant computing experience I have ever had.

EDIT:
I like my consumer devices to work really well now.
With an attitude like that, it's hard for the technology industry to evolve. Do you remember when the iMac originally came out? It was very controversial because it lacked a Floppy Disc drive. Now, weather this was a convenience or an inconvenience is irrelevant, the point is: Apple dropped the format of the past (in this case, Flash) for the format of the future, Compact Disc (in this case, HTML5). And for those who say I'm comparing "apples to oranges", HTML5 and Flash both play games and web video. The only difference for me is that Flash sucks on Apple products, end of story.

[Rather Dashing]

With an attitude like that, it's hard for the technology industry to evolve. Do you remember when the iMac originally came out? It was very controversial because it lacked a Floppy Disc drive. Now, weather this was a convenience or an inconvenience is irrelevant, the point is: Apple dropped the format of the past (in this case, Flash) for the format of the future, Compact Disc (in this case, HTML5). And for those who say I'm comparing "apples to oranges", HTML5 and Flash both play games and web video. The only difference for me is that Flash sucks on Apple products, end of story.
If I lived in a world in which floppy discs were consistently used for many things, which I did at the time? Then yeah, I'm going to want floppy support. In fact, I remember having floppy disc support in my computer towers WELL after they had been phased out.

I don't have a floppy drive in my tower now, no. I have a USB floppy drive, but not an internal floppy drive. Why? The world adapted to not need floppy drives, NOT because Apple paved a golden future for every one of us, praise be to the Apple, but because the CD tech was better and eventually reached the point where it had a big enough market share that it was profitable.

When will all the Homestar toons go to HTML5? When will Newgroiunds switch to an all-HTML5 site? When will flash all of the Flash-based menu navigation sites that litter the web completely disappear?

All of my computers support Flash and HTML5. My browsers are ready for both types of content. Chrome OS is ready for it. Almost all other commercial tablets are ready for both types of content.

Apple is fighting the battle of "World, change to MY product's design". You generally can't get away with that, but it's Apple, so who knows? But out here, in the real world, when I go to a website and it doesn't work because there is no Flash support, that doesn't feel like innovation. That feels like Apple locking me out of another thing because it's not good for their bottom line.

I'm not going to buy a toaster that only toasts future bread. Future bread may be AWESOME, and there may even be a few companies making future bread. But if I go into my grocery store and the stock of future bread is intermittent and unreliable, with only promises of "big things" in the future, I'd rather have a toaster that could handle the bread I can get from my grocery store NOW.

Technology moves forward fairly naturally, as cost goes down and availability goes up. No slapping consumers on the wrist and saying "You don't want that" required.

http://imgur.com/HE4PU.png

The best place to be on either of these graphs is generally Early or Late majority. At some point along that top of the curve, the technology is heavily supported, costs and has less problems overall. If you're going to adopt the tech early, don't pretend the still-prevalent tech does not exist. The early adopters that pretend floppies didn't exist or were stupid were in some trouble when someone wanted to transfer files via floppy, which still was the norm and had been the norm for ages. And what of people who adopted early to Betamax? To HD-DVD? To Laserdisc? To...oh, that one video format where you slid in the cartridge thing and the disc came out into the player? Whatever that was called. There was a first-generation iPhone, what happened a year later? New tech categories are at the very least risky in the short term.

[guitarsareboring]

I'm not going to buy a toaster that only toasts future bread. Future bread may be AWESOME, and there may even be a few companies making future bread. But if I go into my grocery store and the stock of future bread is intermittent and unreliable, with only promises of "big things" in the future, I'd rather have a toaster that could handle the bread I can get from my grocery store NOW.

Have you ever read anything by George Saunders? I reckon he would LOVE that paragraph.

[Rather Dashing]

Have you ever read anything by George Saunders? I reckon he would LOVE that paragraph.
Never heard of the man. But I'm always looking for new reading material, so he's now on my list of upcoming readings.

[guitarsareboring]

Never heard of the man. But I'm always looking for new reading material, so he's now on my list of upcoming readings.

I first read Pastoralia by him but it was this that really won me over.
http://www.amazon.com/Persuasion-Nation-George-Saunders/dp/159448242X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270488585&sr=8-2

You can read a few pages there.

[natlinxz]

Rather Dashing, have you ever used flash on a Mac? How about on a PSP? Try combining the two together, and that's what you would get for Flash on the iPad. I'm not going to get into an argument about Apple making everyone change for their products (which is a flawed argument), but I will say this: Flash isn't perfect on all platforms. And rather than wait for Adobe to perfect Flash on Apple hardware, how about apple does something? Something like, oh I don't know, switch to HTML5? It makes perfect sense to people who have actually used flash on mac.

[Tor]

Why are you guys discussing minor issues like flash support when there are far more important questions at hand? For example, will it blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko)?

[Rather Dashing]

Rather Dashing, have you ever used flash on a Mac? How about on a PSP? Try combining the two together, and that's what you would get for Flash on the iPad. I'm not going to get into an argument about Apple making everyone change for their products (which is a flawed argument), but I will say this: Flash isn't perfect on all platforms. And rather than wait for Adobe to perfect Flash on Apple hardware, how about apple does something? Something like, oh I don't know, switch to HTML5? It makes perfect sense to people who have actually used flash on mac.
So...Flash is unnecessary on Apple devices because they suck at Flash.

...

Why not just get something that does Flash, you know, well?


You don't make a toaster that doesn't fit bagels because you assume bagels will be phased out for a breakfast item that accomplishes the same general goal of a bagel. People will still want to eat bagels while the SupahBagel™ catches on. People who wake up every morning to eat a Sun-Dried Tomato Bagel aren't going to like waiting for the flavor to start being produced in SupahBagels™. Also: yes, I missed breakfast this morning.

A device whose primary purpose is to experience web content should not be locked out of the vast majority of video and games on the web. Flash is a currently used development platform, and it has been used for a large variety of the web's most famous and consistently-visited content. HTML5 may be the future, but Flash is the present, and the idea that Apple is going to be the shining knight that will smite the evil Flash dragon and fill the entire web with the glorious riches of HTML5, leading to world peace and happiness and glory for all...the idea seems somewhat unrealistic.

The current web is not designed with HTML5, and it is only now starting to get its first big steps. I don't even need to know or care WHY Flash is not supported on the iPad. I don't need to know WHY Apple decided to lock me out of my means of watching television shows(Hulu), deciding that I should instead go to iTunes and give them a 30% cut of a paid purchase for the same episode that I can view for free on Flash-compatible devices.

If Flash is so horrible on Apple devices, I see no reason to own one until either Flash DOES work on them, or Flash is as phased out as the floppy disk. Either way, the iPad is a horrible device NOW, and why should I care what the reason is? Why should the reason convince me that I don't need 50% of the sites I regularly visit? I'd rather wait for a web-centric device that works with the WHOLE internet, not the parts Apple doesn't find harmful to their revenue stream.

[natlinxz]

Why not just get something that does Flash, you know, well?

Apple isn't the one doing flash wrong, Adobe is. How is it Apples fault that Adobe doesn't know how to program properly on Apple hardware? That's nonsense. Rather than delay the release of the iPad for a few months while Adobe works on something that probably won't work right, how about apple makes a bold decision like not adding flash support? It makes perfect sense.

And you keep implying that the internet has to change for the ipad. And guess what? It will! So many websites have become iPhone-compatible in the last few years, and it will happen to the iPad as well.

[Comrade Pants]

Apple isn't the one doing flash wrong, Adobe is. How is it Apples fault that Adobe doesn't know how to program properly on Apple hardware? That's nonsense. Rather than delay the release of the iPad for a few months while Adobe works on something that probably won't work right, how about apple makes a bold decision like not adding flash support? It makes perfect sense.

And you keep implying that the internet has to change for the ipad. And guess what? It will! So many websites have become iPhone-compatible in the last few years, and it will happen to the iPad as well.

Shouldn't you program FOR the standard instead of expecting the standard to change because you're making too much money on the App Store? Apple is making all the moves of the Parasite, my friends. They're playing you all for fools.

[Rather Dashing]

Apple isn't the one doing flash wrong, Adobe is. How is it Apples fault that Adobe doesn't know how to program properly on Apple hardware? That's nonsense. Rather than delay the release of the iPad for a few months while Adobe works on something that probably won't work right, how about apple makes a bold decision like not adding flash support? It makes perfect sense.
It doesn't matter who is doing it wrong. Even if I was absolutely certain that Apple had valiantly tried, for it's true and noble followers, everything it could while the evil Adobe corporation spit in their faces and laughed mockingly in their faces(while also working with everyone else (http://www.openscreenproject.org/) and being displeased overall with Apple's decision to keep Flash off the iPad), then it wouldn't matter. The iPad would be a BAD DEVICE, and I shouldn't care whether or not it was actually Apple's fault. It would just be a bad device, despite all of Apple's efforts, and it's too bad that it didn't turn out good enough to be worth purchasing.

And you keep implying that the internet has to change for the ipad.
No, I keep saying that anyone who thinks that the entire internet can, should, and will change for the iPad are drooling morons that don't understand that products should work in the real world, and not some magical fantasy land you made up to make some technology company appear more capable than it really is.


And guess what? It will! So many websites have become iPhone-compatible in the last few years, and it will happen to the iPad as well.
http://www.hulu.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.newgrounds.com/
http://www.kongregate.com/
http://homestarrunner.com/
http://machinarium.net/demo/
http://espn.go.com/
http://disney.go.com/index

Also, pretty much every website for every movie created. Many sites for video games and video game companies use Flash for menus and user interfaces. I just think you are being foolish if you actually expect that every single person that has ever developed a site in Flash is going to marvel at the RADIANCE of the iPad's GLORIOUS REVOLUTIONARY FUTURE, and suddenly decide that they are going to immediately set to work converting their entire works into HTML5.

[Comrade Pants]

It doesn't matter who is doing it wrong. Even if I was absolutely certain that Apple had valiantly tried, for it's true and noble followers, everything it could while the evil Adobe corporation spit in their faces and laughed mockingly in their faces(while also working with everyone else (http://www.openscreenproject.org/) and being displeased overall with Apple's decision to keep Flash off the iPad), then it wouldn't matter. The iPad would be a BAD DEVICE, and I shouldn't care whether or not it was actually Apple's fault. It would just be a bad device, despite all of Apple's efforts, and it's too bad that it didn't turn out good enough to be worth purchasing.


No, I keep saying that anyone who thinks that the entire internet can, should, and will change for the iPad are drooling morons that don't understand that products should work in the real world, and not some magical fantasy land you made up to make some technology company appear more capable than it really is.



http://www.hulu.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.newgrounds.com/
http://www.kongregate.com/
http://homestarrunner.com/
http://machinarium.net/demo/
http://espn.go.com/
http://disney.go.com/index

Also, pretty much every website for every movie created. Many sites for video games and video game companies use Flash for menus and user interfaces. I just think you are being foolish if you actually expect that every single person that has ever developed a site in Flash is going to marvel at the RADIANCE of the iPad's GLORIOUS REVOLUTIONARY FUTURE, and suddenly decide that they are going to immediately set to work converting their entire works into HTML5.


Why don't you tell us what you really think about the iPad? I'm sure you just love it.
I attempted to do sarcasm in text... I failed.

[Rather Dashing]

Why don't you tell us what you really think about the iPad? I'm sure you just love it.
No, no I do not. If this device wasn't a major product launch, I'd just ignore the thing. "Oh, another crappy device that nobody needs". But this is considered huge, it's considered revolutionary, and it is going to affect people, companies, and products in the future. The iPad is a CANCER, that threatens the very reasons I love computers. It posits that we don't want a world in which I go to Fry's to pick up a new graphics card or stick of RAM or Motherboard. It posits that, if I want to create, to actually CONTRIBUTE something longer than a URL, then I need a $70 accessory on top of my computer purchase. It posits that MY role is consumer. I pay a $500 entrance fee simply to GET INTO Apple's store, and they spend the rest of the time taking a solid 30% off the top of everything I buy. And I will buy, because the iPad isn't a computer, it is a purchasing environment, a consumption system, and I am intended to use it specifically as a portal for my money into Apple's bank account. The idea that these horrible ideas are going to become POPULAR, that they will infect the computer industry and the very way I will continue to be able to interact with my computer hardware...that disgusts me.

[Comrade Pants]

No, no I do not. If this device wasn't a major product launch, I'd just ignore the thing. "Oh, another crappy device that nobody needs". But this is considered huge, it's considered revolutionary, and it is going to affect people, companies, and products in the future. The iPad is a CANCER, that threatens the very reasons I love computers. It posits that we don't want a world in which I go to Fry's to pick up a new graphics card or stick of RAM or Motherboard. It posits that, if I want to create, to actually CONTRIBUTE something longer than a URL, then I need a $70 accessory on top of my computer purchase. It posits that MY role is consumer. I pay a $500 entrance fee simply to GET INTO Apple's store, and they spend the rest of the time taking a solid 30% off the top of everything I buy. And I will buy, because the iPad isn't a computer, it is a purchasing environment, a consumption system, and I am intended to use it specifically as a portal for my money into Apple's bank account. The idea that these horrible ideas are going to become POPULAR, that they will infect the computer industry and the very way I will continue to be able to interact with my computer hardware...that disgusts me.

This is the best argument against the cancerous Apple Corporation I have yet heard. Still... Is there blood in the streets? Of course. Have some chosen to destroy themselves with careless consumerism? Undeniable. But I will make no proclamations, I will dictate no laws. The Great Chain moves slowly, but with wisdom. It is our impatience that invites in the Parasite of big government. And once you've invited it in, it will never stop feeding on the body of the city.

Also, Apple keeps the Rapture Central Council in fedoras and silk suits, so I'm in no position to complain.

[Jake]

This thread is terrible. Stop role playing as Andrew Ryan, please, or leave the forums.

[Comrade Pants]

This thread is terrible. Stop role playing as Andrew Ryan, please, or leave the forums.

But... but I like it here. I'm sure I have, like a fan. Somewhere? Anywhere? Can we have a poll? Please? Pretty please?

[Rather Dashing]

But... but I like it here. I'm sure I have, like a fan. Somewhere? Anywhere? Can we have a poll? Please? Pretty please?
+1 vote

[Secret Fawful]

But... but I like it here. I'm sure I have, like a fan. Somewhere? Anywhere? Can we have a poll? Please? Pretty please?

+2 vote

[Jake]

+1 vote

Says the guy who role played as the Videlectrix developers...

[Rather Dashing]

Says the guy who role played as the Videlectrix developers...
So...they don't get their own vote? :D

[Comrade Pants]

So...they don't get their own vote? :D

And I can't vote as iambecomedeath7?

[Videlectrix]

But... but I like it here. I'm sure I have, like a fan. Somewhere? Anywhere? Can we have a poll? Please? Pretty please?
-1 vote. We here at Videlectrix find the practice to be counterintuitive to the honest connection of human beings over ARPANET graphics machines.

...also, I totally run the Good Graphicketeers off this account. And I totally intend to finish off that album of Videlectrix manuals and promotional materials sometime. You couldn't possibly ban the Good Graphicketeers, Jake. You're one of them. :(

[Chyron8472]

This thread is terrible. Stop role playing as Andrew Ryan, please, or leave the forums.

Okay, I don't know if you're on Team Argyle or Team Dino, but whatever Team you're on, I'ma join it.

+1337 votes for Jake.


EDIT: on topic, Apple sucks. I'm all for Telltale making games for Apple hardware because it will make TTG money. Telltale is awesome and I hope they become the next household name when it comes to the gaming industry. But, Apple still sucks.

People will buy Apple products because Apple is great at generating sales hype and building hardware that looks pretty and has cool features. However, I would say that anyone willing to pay $60 per month PER PHONE for an iPhone is an idiot. If my wife and I had 2 iPhones, that's $120 per month in bills at the basic rate just to have cell phones. Also, I've played around alot with iTunes, and aside from having a big music store, it really sucks as a media player. I'll take WinAmp any day.

Apple's hardware costs too damn much, and it's too dependent on proprietary software.

[Rather Dashing]

Okay, I don't know if you're on Team Argyle or Team Dino, but whatever Team you're on, I'ma join it.

+1337 votes for Jake.
You're stuffing the ballot box.

[GuruGuru214]

But... but I like it here. I'm sure I have, like a fan. Somewhere? Anywhere? Can we have a poll? Please? Pretty please?

On one hand, the Ryan thing can be entertaining. On the other, you do seem to take it too far in certain threads. Like this one. And that's where I see the line between whatever it is you were doing and actually being a troll.

So...neutral vote?

[Chyron8472]

You're stuffing the ballot box.

I'm not a Republican, thanks.

But anyway, if it gets "Andrew Ryan" to shut up, who cares?

[Rather Dashing]

I'm not a Republican, thanks.

But anyway, if it gets "Andrew Ryan" to shut up, who cares?
Presumably Andrew Ryan. Oh, and others with false identities, like myself.

[Chyron8472]

Yes, but that's funny. "Presumably Andrew Ryan" is not.

[Leak]

This thread is terrible. Stop role playing as Andrew Ryan, please, or leave the forums.
I think a golf club could come in handy to silence him... ;)

[natlinxz]

Okay, I'm going to stop posting in this thread. Rather Dashing is biased against apple products (and he admits it, too). Complaining that Apple is just trying to make money is stupid, because that's how the world works. You pay money, someone provides a service. Your argument (and weird toast metaphors) grow stale and old. People don't use apple computers because of the hype, they use apple computers because they actually want to. Can you grasp this concept? They have used Windows and OS X, and chose it out of their own free will. Apple makes excellent software like iMovie, iPhoto, Final Cut, Aperture, Logic Studio, Keynote, Pages, etc. And people want to use this software on a multi-touch interface (along with hundreds of thousands of third party programs too).

[GuruGuru214]

they use apple computers because they actually want to. Can you grasp this concept? They have used Windows and OS X, and chose it out of their own free will.

I can personally grasp this concept in theory, but having used OS X, I can't grasp the concept in practice. It's almost as baffling to me as people who actually choose to use Linux, which I've also tried. I've found both OSes to be about as user-friendly as a rabid wolverine. But hey, if it works for them, great, even if I can't understand it.

[Thriftweed Fancy Pants]

No, no I do not. If this device wasn't a major product launch, I'd just ignore the thing. "Oh, another crappy device that nobody needs". But this is considered huge, it's considered revolutionary, and it is going to affect people, companies, and products in the future. The iPad is a CANCER, that threatens the very reasons I love computers. It posits that we don't want a world in which I go to Fry's to pick up a new graphics card or stick of RAM or Motherboard. It posits that, if I want to create, to actually CONTRIBUTE something longer than a URL, then I need a $70 accessory on top of my computer purchase. It posits that MY role is consumer. I pay a $500 entrance fee simply to GET INTO Apple's store, and they spend the rest of the time taking a solid 30% off the top of everything I buy. And I will buy, because the iPad isn't a computer, it is a purchasing environment, a consumption system, and I am intended to use it specifically as a portal for my money into Apple's bank account. The idea that these horrible ideas are going to become POPULAR, that they will infect the computer industry and the very way I will continue to be able to interact with my computer hardware...that disgusts me.

Goodness... If you actually believe the WHOLE WORLD will bow to Apple's ideals, then you are fantasizing. Their global market share is less than 10%.

[Friar]

Goodness... If you actually believe the WHOLE WORLD will bow to Apple's ideals, then you are fantasizing. Their global market share is less than 10%.Are we talking about Slate PC's or Macs or MP3 devices or smartphones? With smartphones, and MP3 players, they have a huge influence, that indicates that whilst they may only have 10% overall, thats still alot more than any other company in those areas.

[Comrade Pants]

Yes, but that's funny. "Presumably Andrew Ryan" is not.

Frankly, sir, I am offended at your opinion. Still... I will make no proclamations. It is each and every man's right to state his opinion... even if it is wrong.

[MusicallyInspired]

I think it's awesome. Imagine Linux on an iPad. Portable hacker tools wherever you go! Seriously, though. I'm excited. It means the world is finally getting closer to Star Trek technology. :D

[Chyron8472]

It is each and every man's right to state his opinion... even if it is wrong.

It appears that you are the embodiment of that statement.

[Comrade Pants]

I think it's awesome. Imagine Linux on an iPad. Portable hacker tools wherever you go! Seriously, though. I'm excited. It means the world is finally getting closer to Star Trek technology. :D

There have been tablet computers for ages. Apple had one go at it already. Remember the Newton?

[Thriftweed Fancy Pants]

Are we talking about Slate PC's or Macs or MP3 devices or smartphones? With smartphones, and MP3 players, they have a huge influence, that indicates that whilst they may only have 10% overall, thats still alot more than any other company in those areas.

I'm not talking about mobile devices; the context of this discussion is personal computers. And Apple doesn't have 10% overall. To be honest, they probably have less than 5% of the global market share. To institute Rather Dashing's dreaded iWorld, Apple would have to topple HP, Acer, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, and eliminate all other competition.

[natlinxz]

I'm just throwing this thought out there (I'm not going to make the foolish argument that Macs are more common than PCs, because thats just stupid), a lot of PC sales come from businesses, who will buy hundreds at a time. The Mac market share among home computers and personal use is probably over 10%, but less than 20%.

[Rather Dashing]

Okay, I'm going to stop posting in this thread. Rather Dashing is biased against apple products (and he admits it, too).
I suppose I could say that? I think their interface design on portable devices is ingenious, and the actual USE of the devices tends to be very smooth and elegant. So I don't think I'm incapable of seeing merits in Apple products, I just am certain that being pretty, slick, and simple are by no means able to counterbalance the glaring flaws that they build into their products, intentionally or otherwise.

((This has nothing to do with their computers. I have almost no experience with Macs beyond the mid-80s, I have no qualification to even have an opinion on that front.))

Complaining that Apple is just trying to make money is stupid, because that's how the world works. You pay money, someone provides a service. Your argument (and weird toast metaphors) grow stale and old.
Of course companies try to make money. I'm not arguing that trying to make money is bad and evil. I'm arguing that trying to make money in unfair, anti-consumer ways shouldn't be supported by the very people that are being screwed over.

I gotta agree on one thing, though: Stale toast sucks.
People don't use apple computers because of the hype
I'm sure some do. I'm also sure that...

they use apple computers because they actually want to. Can you grasp this concept?
...some do for this reason, too. I think the Apple portable devices, ESPECIALLY the iPhone and the iPad(and the MacBook Air), are more "status symbol electronics". All flash, some substance, but just not enough substance.

Also, you obviously weren't paying attention, because there was one toast metaphor and the other was about BAGELS. Also, I was hungry.

They have used Windows and OS X, and chose it out of their own free will. Apple makes excellent software like iMovie, iPhoto, Final Cut, Aperture, Logic Studio, Keynote, Pages, etc. And people want to use this software on a multi-touch interface (along with hundreds of thousands of third party programs too).
I can see that, I suppose. Does the iPad support/come with the entire suite of iLife/iWork programs? I noticed some spreadsheet work in iWork during the press show.

The problem is that I don't think data entry is the iPad's strong suit, and I don't think that that iPad was really built to do complex editing tasks. I'd wait for the Mac model that comes with a touchscreen, or I'd get a touchscreen monitor for a Mac, if I was wanting to use those programs that way.

Are Macs using DisplayPort as their exclusive video output? I'm honestly not sure. I have absolutely no opinion or really much knowledge of Mac computers. I'm not arguing "against Apple" as an entity, I'm arguing against the ideas they're putting forward in their portable devices about how we are meant to interact with our content, how we are meant to interact with our software, and how we are meant to interact with our hardware.

Goodness... If you actually believe the WHOLE WORLD will bow to Apple's ideals, then you are fantasizing. Their global market share is less than 10%.
It's more a "cultural victory" than "domination victory" situation. Right now, in the smartphone market, everyone wants to be the iPhone. In the feature-rich MP3-player market, everybody wants to be the iPod. When an idea about how we interact with content is both INSANELY LUCRATIVE and popular, others follow suit.

I'm not talking about mobile devices; the context of this discussion is personal computers. And Apple doesn't have 10% overall. To be honest, they probably have less than 5% of the global market share. To institute Rather Dashing's dreaded iWorld, Apple would have to topple HP, Acer, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, and eliminate all other competition.
Or simply convince them that locked-down, super-simplified computers are what everyone wants. And Apple doesn't need to TRY to convince them, they just need to try to make money and succeed.

Granted, there are a lot of other factors. But I don't want things like the iPad being considered viable alternatives to desktop computers, or even laptops or netbooks.

[GuruGuru214]

There have been tablet computers for ages. Apple had one go at it already. Remember the Newton?

For April Fool's Day, ThinkGeek (http://www.thinkgeek.com/) had a sweepstakes. First prize was a Newton and a $1000 shopping spree. Second prize was an iPad and a $500 shopping spree.

[Comrade Pants]

For April Fool's Day, ThinkGeek (http://www.thinkgeek.com/) had a sweepstakes. First prize was a Newton and a $1000 shopping spree. Second prize was an iPad and a $500 shopping spree.

I know... I totally entered. I need a Newton for the Fort Frolic Museum of Technological Folly. Only time will tell if an iPad could suffice.

[Friar]

I'm not talking about mobile devices; the context of this discussion is personal computers. And Apple doesn't have 10% overall. To be honest, they probably have less than 5% of the global market share. To institute Rather Dashing's dreaded iWorld, Apple would have to topple HP, Acer, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, and eliminate all other competition. Ah okay. But in 2-3 months time, in terms of slate/tablet PC's only, that percentage will be far far higher.

[Rather Dashing]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/10/steve-jobs-responds-to-complaint-about-new-development-tool-rest/

It's really amazing how anti-develoer, anti-consumer, and just plain anti-good Apple can be.

[Avistew]

You know, I don't really like Apple. Their products seem more expensive than the competition, while lasting less time and being able to do less.
But I just don't buy their products. You seem to have made it your personal mission to bring them down or something. I don't get it.
Just because their products don't do it for you (or me) doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to want them, buy them and like them.

If you've got that much bottled up anger, maybe you could make apple sauce. It's tasty, too.

I'm not saying you're not allowed to hate them. I'm just not sure why you're trying to make other people hate them too.

[Rather Dashing]

If you've got that much bottled up anger, maybe you could make apple sauce. It's tasty, too.
Never was too fond of applesauce. I'd go for juice or cider instead, thanks. Maybe pie.

I'm not saying you're not allowed to hate them. I'm just not sure why you're trying to make other people hate them too.
It's a matter of principles, really. Apple is the leader when it comes to the MP3 player and smartphone markets, and they may end up with the tablet PC market as well. Everybody wants to be Apple.

I wouldn't care so much if they weren't in such a powerful and influential market position. But they are, and so their decisions do end up affecting me.

For example: If apps for the iPhone and iPad can't use Flash or other intermediary, easily-ported dev tools, then it's more likely that the iPhone OS devices will get exclusive access to more applications that may have otherwise gone multi-platform, because they're such a big portion of the market. It was similar when the DRM scheme of iTunes was unfair bullying on the part of Apple toward the customer and their competitors.

Basically, they aren't being fair. They aren't producing an open product to honestly compete with the others in the marketplace. They're creating a closed ecosystem, because they can, because they're Apple, and that makes it an unfair competition. Competition, when it's fair, does push forward innovation and make the world a better place.

[Chyron8472]

I thought that hating them on principle was obvious. Hating Apple is like hating Microsoft is like hating AOL. One just feels compelled to hate them, and therefore complain. But we know that they're too big to take down by just not buying their stuff, since so many other people buy it already anyway.

[Rather Dashing]

I thought that hating them on principle was obvious. Hating Apple is like hating Microsoft is like hating AOL. One just feels compelled to hate them, and therefore complain. But we know that they're too big to take down by just not buying their stuff, since so many other people buy it already anyway.
There's no reason to hate AOL anymore. Their reign of terror has long since ended. Now they just...publish some blogs and maintain an IM client that I use indirectly.

Microsoft...I sadly accept as a necessary evil. I understand the love of Linux, I just can't use it for enough of the things that I do to make it worth the trouble. At least Microsoft lets me put the OS on whatever hardware I want, though, and lets me cobble together my own PC from spare parts if I want. And yeah, I often do want.

[Chyron8472]

True.

That reminds me of a "PC vs. Mac" spoof on youtube where they both get upgraded...

PC gets upgraded to Vista, meaning that he gets escorted off stage and comes back with a different shirt.

Mac gets "upgraded," meaning that he gets escorted off stage and promptly shot, to be replaced by an entirely different person.

[Rather Dashing]

Yeah, but I don't care too much about Macs. Because Macs aren't really affecting anything I do, at least in a negative way. Macs aren't the major players. Some of the ideas about user interface from the Macs have made it over to Windows and other devices, and generally it's been a good change.

As far as mac computers go, I can live and let live far away from me. That tune might change if they started to affect the entire computer market and made locked-down hardware the norm, but they aren't and they're not.

[Chyron8472]

Yes, well I hear you about iPods and iTunes.

iTunes' only redeeming quality is its large music store. Though I don't have a name-brand iPod, I've attempted to use iTunes as a media player and it certainly does blow goats. (Give me WinAmp any day.)

This is to say that I'll buy music from Lala.com or Amazon if I can help it.

edit: I do have an mp3 player (what do you take me for?) but it's a SanDisk Sansa Fuze and it works just fine.
I never can see the appeal of people wanting to pay $60 per month or more per phone for a device that lets me watch YouTube when I'm driving down the highway. I do know that $60 per month per phone is the low end, which means that if a family had 3 iPhones, they'd be paying at least $180 per month on cell service alone. That's like buying 6 $30 TTG game series per month.

[Avistew]

You know, I've never had an Apple mp3 player. It's not like you have to, is it? Or is it worse in the US? I always saw Sony or Phillips or Archos as bigger brands than Apple. iPods and the like always seemed to me to only have that small cult following who bought them just because they were Apple products, and the only reason they weren't bankrupt yet was that there products are so expansive they only need to sell just a little.

Are they that big in the US?

[Chyron8472]

I never researched the numbers, but it seems to me like 1 out of every 3 or 4 people I know has one.

It thoroughly annoys me.

[Avistew]

I never researched the numbers, but it seems to me like 1 out of every 3 or 4 people I know has one.

It thoroughly annoys me.

I know one person who used to have an iPod, that was given to her by her boyfriend who was a total Mac person. Which I totally get because it's apparently what works best for his job.
It broke 3 times in the time I had my p3 player of the time (the one with replaceable AA batteries. I loved that thing. I was totally careless with it though, can't remember how I finally destroyed it but it probably involved dumping it in water or something similar). I'm pretty sure now she has a different one since it wouldn't be covered by the warranty anymore by now.

The other people I know with mp3 players have other brands though. Honestly, I always saw iPods as something like, say, Ferrari. It doesn't work better but it makes you look rich, and not a lot of people have one, and those who do tend to all be in the same circles.

Maybe it's different here. I don't know, since in Canada the only other person I know with a mp3 player is my father in law, and that's because we bought one for him.

[Rather Dashing]

I've always seen vague numbers like 78-92% of the MP3 player market.

In their Q1 2010 earnings report, they did touch on the subject of how many iPods they sell:


Apple sold 21 million iPods during the quarter, representing an eight percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter.

- http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/25results.html

So that's 21 million in a quarter of a year, if that says anything.

[Avistew]

I've always seen vague numbers like 78-92% of the MP3 player market.

O.O

I find that surprising. They're so much more expensive! Why do people buy them instead of the cheaper ones? Do they have some secret advantage I don't know of?

[Rather Dashing]

O.O

I find that surprising. They're so much more expensive! Why do people buy them instead of the cheaper ones? Do they have some secret advantage I don't know of?
I don't have a very reliable source for the percentage, just the number sold in the first quarter of 2010. I'd believe it, though, from my own anecdotal experience.

Also, I don't know. It's an extremely prominent brand. I have never owned an iPod in my life. My sister has a Touch, and it's a neat little device, but I just couldn't justify the expense to myself.

[Avistew]

Found some stuff in French (I'm leaving the French version for people who speak French, since it's always better than a - rushed - translation):

En octobre 2004, il dominait largement le marché étatsunien avec 92 % (82 % en 2003) des ventes de baladeurs numériques à disque dur et 70 % du marché total. Pour la même année, la présence d'Apple sur le marché mondial des baladeurs numériques est estimée à 21 %

"In October 2004 [the brand] dominated by far the US market with 92% (82% in 2003) of hard drive mp3 player sales and 70% of the whole market. (TrN: I'm guessing they mean all mp3 players, hard drive or not?). For that same year, the Apple presence on the world market for mp3 players is estimated at 21%"

En Europe, en 2007, selon GfK, l'iPod disposait de 27 % des parts de marché, tandis qu'aux USA, en juillet 2008, l'iPod représentait 73 % des ventes de baladeurs numériques.

"In Europe, in 2007, according to GfK the iPod did (what's the proper verb in English?) 27% of the market, while in the USA in July 2008 it accounted for 73% of MP3 player sales."

So, definitely a lot less popular in Europe (or worldwide) than in the US I would say. And I'm going to say it would be lower in France than, say, Britain for language reasons, so I'd assume a lower number for France than for the whole of Europe.

[Chyron8472]

when I say "1 in 3 or 4 people I know has one," I'm speaking specifically of iPhones. I hope I made that clear.

Still, it annoys the crap out of me, not to mention boggles the mind why people pay so much for a damn iPhone (which is just an iPod Touch with a cell phone app on it and 3G coverage.)

[Avistew]

Well, I don't get why so many people have cellphones to begin with, so I'm certainly not going to understand why the have iPhones specifically.

But... I don't know, they should be allowed to spend their money the way they want. I wouldn't mind if they bought something cheaper and gave me the difference, but it's not going to keep me up at night that they don't :P

As long as they don't try nagging me about how I should get one, of course.

(I don't know anyone with an iPhone. My parents wanted to get me one when it first came out, though, but I told them I certainly didn't see why I'd ever want one and they didn't insist.)

[Rather Dashing]

Well, I don't get why so many people have cellphones to begin with, so I'm certainly not going to understand why the have iPhones specifically.
Oh, I don't understand why anyone has land line phones anymore. Why would you?

When you call a conventional, wall telephone, you are being connected to a place. Generally a house, with multiple people living in it. When you call a cellphone, you are contacting a person. Voicemails can be more personal, you can send text messages, and the person can be contacted even if they're not home. If you have a cellphone, you get the benefit of never being "out of contact" with the world if you don't want to be.

Anyway, I can see the appeal of the iPhone on top of normal cellphones. Web browsing is a breeze on the thing, it has a large application library which, with the benefit of 3G coverage, brings a lot of net-enabled applications anywhere you go. It's all about the size of the thing: the iPhone can fit a lot of connectivity in your pocket and allow you to access it anywhere you go.

It's slick and cool. I just hate what they're doing on principle. Also, it costs a lot of money.

[Avistew]

Oh, I don't understand why anyone has land line phones anymore. Why would you?

When you call a conventional, wall telephone, you are being connected to a place. Generally a house, with multiple people living in it. When you call a cellphone, you are contacting a person.

It's much, much cheaper, especially since to match your second point, we'd need to own two cellphones.
And I don't see the point of paying more for something I wouldn't use. Emails and chatrooms work fine for communicating with people, and at least you know that when they read it it's because they want to.
With phones you just disturb whatever it is they were doing at the time. Honestly, I'd do without phones at all if I could, but you need a number for so many things, we have to have a phone of some type.

(Also, in France cellphones have different numbers than house phones do, and most things require a home phone-type number, so if you have a cellphone it's not instead but on top of.)

I get the "personal" thing though. I used to have a cellphone: when I lived with my parents and didn't have my own Internet. I lost all need for one when I moved on my own though. Especially in Paris with all the phone booths in case I needed to call from outside (which happened twice in three years, both times a 30s conversation).

Here, I just don't go out enough for it to be relevant, and why my husband is out he's at work, so I can call his work phone.

[GuruGuru214]

I used to get by just fine without a cell phone. Then I went on to college and it became an essential part of life for communicating with my family and friends. But still, I got along just fine without text messaging. Then two years later, we upgraded our phones and, at my sister's insistence, had texting added to our plan. Now, I would be very much out of the loop with my friends without it.

What I'm getting at here is that it's a lot easier to feel that you don't need something when you don't have it, but once you've got it, it can feel much more essential.

Another example is the iPod. In high school, I thought it might be cool to have an MP3 player, but I knew iPods were horrendously expensive and I was getting by just fine with this CD player I had. I'd gotten it for the price of headphones, having found it on the ground one day, and it played MP3 discs, so I was happy with it. Then my parents bought me an iPod as a graduation present. I have to say, knowing how miserable the interface is in OSX and especially in iTunes, it's amazing to me that this product came from Apple. It handles my music, videos, and photos with a very easy to use interface.

Before I had one, I couldn't justify the price, but owning one, I've realized two things. One: It's a very nice little device. Two: The price of the iPod Classic is much easier for me to justify when I realize that the thing is basically a portable external hard drive with a music player attached to it. Portable hard drives are expensive, so given the cost of the iPod and how much file space it has on it, I don't feel nearly so bad about the price.

[Rather Dashing]

It's much, much cheaper, especially since to match your second point, we'd need to own two cellphones.
Well, each person would need one, anyway. And they're so prolific now, at least in the states.

Also, "Cheaper" isn't always true. I run my cellphone off pre-paid cards. After the initial investment for the phone itself(because it wasn't subsidized by a contract), I ended up paying not too much per month at all, because I only pay for my outgoing calls.

For a home phone solution, I use Skype. I talk to my family and a lot of my friends through Skype-to-Skype calls. My computer is my landline, so my cellphone is there for when I need to get in contact with someone and I'm not at home.

And I don't see the point of paying more for something I wouldn't use. Emails and chatrooms work fine for communicating with people, and at least you know that when they read it it's because they want to.
With phones you just disturb whatever it is they were doing at the time.
Commonly, if you don't want to receive messages, you silence the phone. If the phone's on and set to notify the person(via vibrate or ring), it's because they're out but open for communication.

Honestly, I'd do without phones at all if I could, but you need a number for so many things, we have to have a phone of some type.
I always put my cell number.

(Also, in France cellphones have different numbers than house phones do, and most things require a home phone-type number, so if you have a cellphone it's not instead but on top of.)
....yeah, I'd hate that.


Before I had one, I couldn't justify the price, but owning one, I've realized two things. One: It's a very nice little device. Two: The price of the iPod Classic is much easier for me to justify when I realize that the thing is basically a portable external hard drive with a music player attached to it. Portable hard drives are expensive, so given the cost of the iPod and how much file space it has on it, I don't feel nearly so bad about the price.
Eh, I'm happy with my generic player. If I wanted to spend iPod-level cash on something, it'd probably be the nook or the Kindle, because I read a lot more than I listen to music, and those two devices just don't have "equally good" generic alternatives.

[Avistew]

What I'm getting at here is that it's a lot easier to feel that you don't need something when you don't have it, but once you've got it, it can feel much more essential.

I agree. But I personally see that as "fake needs". Or "created needs" if you will. Things you could live fine without, that are nice to have but can make you think "how could I live without it?". That's pretty common in our society.

I had a cellphone for 5 years, I know how useful they can be. I also know I don't need one. And yes, owning one for these five years caused me to create a lifestyle for myself that made it necessary to have one. "I couldn't live without a cellphone because, what if someone wants to call me while I'm out?"
Well, they can call me at home and leave a message if it's important, and if it's not important I haven't missed anything.
I'm much happier without a cellphone than I ever was with one.

I ended up paying not too much per month at all, because I only pay for my outgoing calls.

That would make it free for me. Which also means that there really isn't a point of buying one to begin with.

For a home phone solution, I use Skype. I talk to my family and a lot of my friends through Skype-to-Skype calls.

I would definitely rather do that and not have a landline, but things tend to require a phone number. Maybe I should check it out in case it's an option. Then I could do without a landline, too.

my cellphone is there for when I need to get in contact with someone and I'm not at home.

Doesn't happen to me. Honestly when I think about it, most of the reasons that would cause me to go out would also cause me to have to turn my phone off out of politeness. Theatre, restaurant... And wherever I am, if I need to place a call, they'll have a phone. But I've never had to ask for that before. And why would I? Everything can wait until I'm back home. Although I'm going to be honest with you, the only person I call from my home is my husband when he's at work, and even that is rare.

Commonly, if you don't want to receive messages, you silence the phone. If the phone's on and set to notify the person(via vibrate or ring), it's because they're out but open for communication.

Thanks, I'm aware how they work :p I had one for five years. But I don't see the point in getting something that would either be off or that I would use while I'm at home.

Honestly, I can't think of a single time in my whole life that a phone call didn't disturb me. I find phones rude, annoying and stressful. I'd much rather check my emails whenever I personally want to.
I'd do the same with a cellphone: keep it off except to check for messages. So it would feel wasteful to even have one. As for text messages, who to send them to? All of my friends live in another continent and I don't know anyone here with a cellphone.

I might use a cellphone if it was a gift and I didn't spend money every month on it. Then I'd only have it to be called on, as a number. But even then, I don't think it would be worth the electricity it would cost to keep it charged.

[GuruGuru214]

You strike me as an unusual sort of person in terms of how you interact (or don't) with other people. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Overall, this age of being constantly available for contact is pretty okay with me, but there are times when I don't really want to talk to people, so I can see how the lack of cell phone might appeal to you.

Another thing about my cell phone is that my mother has some trouble with her health. My bedroom is in the basement and hard to yell down to, and she'll often call my cell phone when she needs help with something. Also, on Thursday, I went with her to the hospital for a blood transfusion (her red blood cell count was low, so her doctor ordered one). Upon our arrival, the doctor that saw her decided that he wanted to do a couple examination procedures on her and that she would have to be admitted overnight. I was at the hospital from 6:30 AM to 8:30 PM, following her around all over the place. My cell phone was invaluable as people were trying to get in touch all day to find out what was happening, as I bounced all over the hospital.

[Avistew]

I'm not saying cellphones are never useful, nor that I'll never have one again. I just feel I don't need one with my current situation and lifestyle, so I'm not getting one.
I tend to be annoyed with how people get things they say they "need", then complain they cost too much, when they often don't even need them in the first place.

Right now the people I know where I live are my husband and his family. I live with my husband, and I can do without calling his family constantly :P
My friends are either living in France, which means I'd need an international type of plan to talk to them (and need to take the time difference into account), or people I met online. In both cases, communicating through instant messaging or emails makes much more sense to me.

I also haven't quite recovered from having a cellphone. The advantage is that people can reach you wherever you are. The problem is that people can reach you wherever you are. And leaving the phone off tends to result in people complaining that you're leaving your phone off.
It was nice in many ways, but in other it felt like a prison. If I decided to just take a walk and not bring it with me, I'd have messages complaining that I didn't have the phone with me.
Now people don't complain that I don't have a cellphone. They did at first and quickly adapted to it. Well, now I live in Canada anyways, but even when I was in France.

We ended up planning things a bit more, instead of saying "let's meet around such place" and then calling each other to find each other, we'd give a clear meeting spot and time. Things like that. But all in all, I preferred it greatly because before it ended up too often with people calling while I was already on my way and canceling on me or something. Not having a cellphone forced people to be more reliable, only say they'd meet me if they actually wanted to, and only cancel earlier than at the last minute.

I often joke that I'll get a cellphone when I have a lover so that I can talk to him without my husband risking picking up the phone.
I think what I mean is that I can see how a cellphone can bring you some independence. However it can also bring you a lot of dependence, I feel. I enjoyed a lot of things about having one, but there are also lots of things that improved after I got rid of it.

Either way, if I get one again, I'll have to try hard to find a simple one. I don't like all the "has a camera and a mp3 player and lots of other options" ones. I want something simple. I'd want a phone that's ONLY a phone.
Okay, it can give time too, but that's it.

[GuruGuru214]

I didn't mean to imply that you were saying they were never useful, and I certainly get how your lifestyle pretty much renders a cell phone useless to you right now. However, if you ever go back to having one, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't have some sort of camera built in. It seems to be pretty much a standard thing these days, at least on all the phones I've seen lately. And it's nice to have every once in a while, but still, I rarely use mine. With no flash and such low resolution, it's not like I can really use it for any sort of decent pictures.

[Leak]

It's really amazing how anti-develoer, anti-consumer, and just plain anti-good Apple can be.
A good comparison I've seen lately was Apple is now behaving like mid-90s Microsoft (http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/now-apple-is-behaving-like-mid-90s-microsoft-682443).

Truth be told, I even own an iPod (and plan on buying a 160GB Classic, since it's the only device of that size on the market) and rather like it's interface, but I hate hate hate the infrastructure Apple makes you put up with to use it with Windows (iTunes? QuickTime? Submarine Safari install? Puhleeeze!).

Luckily, you don't have to use any of the above to fill an iPod since there's a plugin (http://yuo.be/ipod.php) for my Windows audio media playing application of choice (http://www.foobar2000.org/) that cuts out the dependency on the abovementioned Apple bloatware.

So while I really only expect my iPod to play music - I've never even used it to watch video - as a software developer I can't help but be majorly miffed at Apples lock-in tactics with regards to their other "appliances" *spit*...

(Hello Apple? A 1 GHz CPU + 256MB RAM + 64GB flash is more than my last home server had, and that certainly wasn't an "appliance". Go stick your marketroidal "funny definitions for hardware" where the sun yadda yadda yadda...)

And for the record - I don't have a cell phone either (and never had one, though I still have a Palm Pilot as an organizer), but if I had to get one it'd either be a Nokia Maemo based device or an Android-based device...

Oh yeah, another thing - Apple calls it's iPad a "tablet" and then it doesn't even have a stylus with pressure sensitivity, like, oh, each and every other tablet on the market? Do they even realize how great that thing would have been for drawing?

np: Autechre - Foil (Amber)

[Avistew]

However, if you ever go back to having one, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't have some sort of camera built in.

Grr.
I don't know why exactly, but having extra things I don't need and won't use is extremely off-putting to me. I'd rather learn to live without something than get it and end up with extra stuff.
I think it's the waste aspect. Things that I don't use, but were built and put there, demanding effort and resources.
And I just don't get why they do it since it's such a poor quality. I've seen cameras that can play mp3s (but only like 7 tracks, and with bad quality), phones that can take pictures (but at a bad quality) and so on. It's unnecessary on bad quality, why force me to have it? I just don't get it.

Maybe I'll find a good way to dig up my old cellphone, from the time they weren't even in colour.

EDIT: Leak!!! I managed to change the subject >_<

[Leak]

EDIT: Leak!!! I managed to change the subject >_<
Wait, what? :confused:

My thread still says "iPad: Your thoughts?" over here...

[natlinxz]

I have to say, knowing how miserable the interface is in OSX and especially in iTunes

Don't do there. Just don't.

The only reason you find Windows (or linux, or whatever you use) easier is because you got to know computers by using it. And by your logic, a computer has to run windows to be a computer. I've talked to people who got to know computers by using Mac, and that is what they call a computer. Anything running Windows or Linux simply isn't a computer.
And then you have people who frequently use both (probably because they own a Mac for personal use, but need a PC for work), and they prefer Mac for it's interface (But need windows for compatibility). Saying that Mac has a bad interface is just showing how ignorant you are when it comes to computers. I have never used Linux, and it's different from anything that I have used before, but I don't say it has a bad interface. I'm sure I would love Linux if I put the effort into installing it.

[guitarsareboring]

Grr.
I don't know why exactly, but having extra things I don't need and won't use is extremely off-putting to me. I'd rather learn to live without something than get it and end up with extra stuff.
I think it's the waste aspect. Things that I don't use, but were built and put there, demanding effort and resources.
And I just don't get why they do it since it's such a poor quality. I've seen cameras that can play mp3s (but only like 7 tracks, and with bad quality), phones that can take pictures (but at a bad quality) and so on. It's unnecessary on bad quality, why force me to have it? I just don't get it.

Maybe I'll find a good way to dig up my old cellphone, from the time they weren't even in colour.

EDIT: Leak!!! I managed to change the subject >_<

I understand what you're saying. I think the reason why people like having cameras on their photos is because they ALWAYS have their phone with them and can snap anything they like. Most people aren't interested in quality images (which is a shame) so it suits them just fine.

[GuruGuru214]

Don't do there. Just don't.

Okay, I was a little harsh on OS X. I have used it before, but to be fair, I haven't used it a lot, and I haven't used it in the same sort of environment I use my own PC in. I can't say that it's miserable, and I know that there's plenty of people who love it, but my own experiences with it have been pretty poor.

iTunes on the other hand... Apple dropped the ball on that one. The music store portion is decent, though I don't use it myself, but the library and iPod management system is functional at best.

I'm sure I would love Linux if I put the effort into installing it.

I've used Linux before, and that is a very dangerous assumption you're making there. In my experience, Linux is about as user-friendly as a rabid wolverine. I may not be a fan of OS X, but I'd be begging for it if it was the only alternative to Red Hat Linux.

[Chyron8472]

If you have a cellphone, you get the benefit of never being "out of contact" with the world if you don't want to be.

Sometimes I want to be out of contact, though.

I don't like people expecting that they can call me anywhere I am when I have a cellphone. I've had two different jobs involving taking inbound (ppl call me) customer sevice/tech support calls, and it's made it so that often I hate answering the phone if it rings too many times in a day.


I do like being able to make calls whenever I want, I just don't like the feeling that I'm on a leash.