Tablets - toys or tools?

[not daSkeptic]

The real point is that I didn't only use my tablet while I was walking around. I also used it as a laptop and as a desktop machine.

What was its primary function?

 

[not daSkeptic]

Unless they insist that their golf cart is just as good as a BMW sedan.

For some purposes it may be, but definitely not for all.

It put the advantages of the tablet approach firmly in the public mind ...

What are those advantages in your opinion?

You didn't ask me about what you wanted.

Actually, she did (emphasis mine) ...

Can you give an example of features which should be present, but are not, or an example of a gizmo which would have been a better choice for me (as an average consumer)?

Is that because you can only use it as a tablet of limited utility, and nothing else?

Limited is not necessarily limiting.

 

[quadraginta]

What was its primary function?

Quite honestly? All three.

On a typical day I was out in the field on the job-site most of the time. I used it strictly as a tablet then, in a soft case with a shoulder strap and a clear plastic cover over the screen.

The time I spent back at my desk I would slide it into into a docking station festooned with a large and rather eclectic collection of peripherals. If I was attending meetings, on-site or off, or using it at home I would use the laptop configuration, although more and more as time went on I would find myself still using it as a tablet.

The transitions were quite seamless and not at all inconvenient. The laptop configuration was never any farther away than a flat surface. Un-clip the keyboard/cover (which clipped onto the back or the front equally well), set the tablet in its easel and plug it into one of the USB ports. Back at my desk the tablet would hot-swap into the docking station.

I've already said this, but I'll say it again. No one was more stunned than I was to discover how much more useful that thing was than a standard laptop because of the addition of the tablet format, and the handwriting recognition software and other tools designed to take advantage of it. I was as skeptical as anyone when I first started using it.

 

[not daSkeptic]

No one was more stunned than I was to discover how much more useful that thing was than a standard laptop because of the addition of the tablet format, and the handwriting recognition software and other tools designed to take advantage of it. I was as skeptical as anyone when I first started using it.

What did you use handwriting for? Data entry? Scribbles?

 

[quadraginta]

Unless they insist that their golf cart is just as good as a BMW sedan.

For some purposes it may be, but definitely not for all.

Yes. I haven't been suggesting otherwise.

It put the advantages of the tablet approach firmly in the public mind ...

What are those advantages in your opinion?

I think that the foremost one is the ease of data input. Note taking, for example. Data selection as well, but simple touch screen is enough to do a fair job of handling that. The development of good handwriting recognition software and low power CPUs with the muscle to use it is what put this approach over the top. Keyboard input in general has limitations about where it is actually useful. The clipboard analogy is good in this sense. I can use a clipboard on my arm or on a desk, but typing isn't quite as accessible.

You didn't ask me about what you wanted.

Actually, she did (emphasis mine) ...

Can you give an example of features which should be present, but are not, or an example of a gizmo which would have been a better choice for me (as an average consumer)?

You highlighted the wrong part. Being neither psychic nor telepathic I was forced to assume that she did not mean for me to be able to read her mind.

Is that because you can only use it as a tablet of limited utility, and nothing else?

Limited is not necessarily limiting.

This sounds very profound. I'm not sure exactly what you want to say by it though.

There seems to be some sort of dichotomy I am not privy to which insists that if it is suggested the iPad is not as useful as it might have been then therefore I am asserting it is somehow useless. I don't believe I have been trying to make such a claim.

 

[quadraginta]

What did you use handwriting for? Data entry? Scribbles?

Anything you might use a keyboard for, as well as legal pad style note taking.

For example.

I could pull up a structural drawing, zoom in to a section in question, clip that and sketch on it, jot off an explanatory note and maybe include a photo or two of field conditions ("...with circles and arrows and ..."), and email it while standing out on site without ever touching a keyboard, real or virtual (although a virtual keyboard was available if I wanted it.)

Scribbles, too.

The HCR wasn't application dependent. It was available for anything which would accept keyboard input. Just another alternative. A really nice one, it turns out.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

But hey spending 5x as much for cool is what apple is all about.

To no one in particular...

The reasons (conscious) that I buy Apple products:

1) Brand loyalty. They've served me well in the past.

2) Consistent GUI over time. I've used Windows and could learn it, but staying with the Mac GUI is easier.

3) Durability. Simple anecdotes, but nearly all my Apple products have outlasted nearly all my Windows products.

4) Integration. I like the way my Mac integrates with my iPhone and other devices, and the ease of use of iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes and iDVD.

5) Elegance. I have a "unibody" MacBook Pro and the engineering is quite elegant. As were many of the Apple products I owned before.

6) Stability. OSX virtually never crashes, which is nice.

7) MUCH less need to worry about viruses.

8) Oh, and did I mention Apple's are cool?

BTW, I was joking about the floppy drive. I just remember the brouhaha when Apple deleted it from the iMac. And a similar kerfluffle now about MacBook Air's without optical drives. (or iPads without USB/HDMI/SD slot, you name it.) I do believe the iPad, and MacBook Air's are heralding the demise of the need for huge on-board storage, and that hard drives are on their way out across the board for portable devices. And portable connectivity requiring wires will seem similarly archaic in a few short years - hence no need for the cost, complexity and space requirements of a whole row of ports.

But people are happy in the Windows world, just as they are in the Apple world. Neither are blind sheeple falling prey to marketing and cool. Both get the job done and have satisfying experiences. One or the other will appeal to different people for different reasons, so there's no reason to berate one or the other.

But if belittling Apple and Apple users somehow fulfills you, belittle away!

 

[fls]

Sigh.

What part of "one electronic device compared to another one" do you not understand?

From a practical perspective the iPad simply does not have all of the capabilities of a full function tablet. I don't understand why you insist on assuming that this constitutes some sort of personal attack on you.

A tricked-out golf cart doesn't have all the functionality of a real car. It is not a personal insult to people using such a golf cart to acknowledge that. Unless they insist that their golf cart is just as good as a BMW sedan. I don't believe that is what you were doing. Maybe I was mistaken.

That's a good analogy (especially since golf carts are a major form of transportation around here). Let's say that VW offers up a sleek and stylish 'golf cart' which is cheaper, safer and more convenient for transporting kids and groceries, and suburban moms snap them up by the thousands. Most golf clubs won't let them on their courses, their top speed is 25 mph, and golf bags won't fit into the storage compartment upright.

I don't like VW. After all, I really don't get the whole beetle thing, and it annoys me that other people do. I characterize the Smart Cart as a dumbed down, crippled and lobotomized toy (after all, you can't use it to play golf). My best friend giggles when I tell her this and waves at me as she gets into her Smart Cart to go collect her kids from their play dates.

Me too. I don't believe I ever suggested otherwise.

Are you responding to the points I've actually tried to make, or just to the ones you want to think I was?

Heavy sigh.

I keep explaining this, and it is as if I am responding to a different thread. I have to think that you are intent on defining my opinions for me, and have little interest in understanding what they actually are. If this is the case you don't need me, you can just argue with yourself.

"Progress". You left out that word. I used it on purpose.

I'm sorry. I thought it would be obvious that I was referring to your statement about the impediment to the progress of technology, since it was immediately below your statement, even though I didn't quote it in full.

Half a decade ago (or more) tablet PCs were only just becoming technologically feasable at any remotely affordable price point. Their very rarity kept them from making much of an impression on the larger consumer PC market. This was gradually ... but very slowly changing.

The introduction of the iPad changed this. It put the advantages of the tablet approach firmly in the public mind, and lent it a legitimacy which its earlier rarity could not. It was no longer limited to vertical markets and gadget geeks.

This was a "good thing". But there has been a downside. Because Apple chose to offer this device as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for a fully featured PC ...a glorified peripheral, if you will ... the public perception of tablets as a class has still been colored by the appellation of "toy". I did not select this appellation. In fact, if you'd been paying attention, instead of so vehemently arguing against positions I haven't taken, you might have noticed that I deplored it as much as anyone else here, and more than many.

In this sense the progress of the technology has been impeded.

I don't understand how you make the leap to that last sentence (that is the part that my question was directed at). Are you presuming that because you think the iPad is a toy, that that is how it is generally perceived? So other tablet makers are now directing their resources in regards to technological progress towards satisfying requirements for toys and have dropped R and D into business use (hence the new devices which offer cameras and phones rather than AutoCad)?

I have every confidence that full function tablets will become mainstream, and sooner rather than later, I expect. But I believe that Apple's unfortunate choice of product placement has delayed that.

Have people been fooled into wanting the wrong thing? If I need a tablet PC, I have trouble understanding why Apple's failure to offer such a product means that other companies won't fulfill my need. If I'm too stupid to have noticed that I wanted a tablet PC before the idea of tablets was mainstreamed, maybe I'm too stupid to make use of it anyways.

I was thinking that it actually advanced the progress by offering a recognizable device against which competitors can offer clear advantages. If you had asked me what I would want in a device, before I got the iPad, I would have picked stuff that I don't use and wouldn't have asked for stuff that I do. Now it is clear to me exactly what features are most functional for me, and what I am missing, so its obvious what competitors can offer to gain an advantage.

Like I keep saying. Look at the title of this thread.

The average consumer hasn't been given the choice ...

Sure they have. People don't eschew products with different operating systems in favor of a single industry OS. People buy non-Windows and non-LINUX products when given a choice.

...yet. The average consumer has yet to discover what alternatives are available, or what could be available. When they do, they're gonna want 'em.

You didn't ask me about what you wanted. You asked me, "Can you give an example of features which should be present, but are not ...". My point is that the entire galaxy of software for the world's most prevalent OS is available to a real tablet PC. Are you arguing that this is true of the iPad? I feel confident that the list can be made much longer. Since you were dodging the question you yourself asked I don't suppose that matters, though.

But clearly a feature which you think should be present is not of interest to the average user - the software offerings from one OS. Apple wouldn't even be around in the first place if this was a priority. I understand that you want to use Microsoft products, but that wouldn't help me, nor many others, who don't care. The rest of the features you mentioned were available to me (it seems that maybe your characterization is based on an incomplete understanding of just what an iPad can do?).

Is that because you can only use it as a tablet of limited utility, and nothing else?

No, because the functions of a mouse are subsumed under the functions of the touch screen (a mouse is redundant).

My point is made.

Your point seems to be that a tablet needs to be able to do stuff that is redundant or unnecessary in order to avoid the "toy" appellation.

See above.

You have once more demonstrated a fascinating ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. Note the highlighted lines, above.

I have already discussed these aspects of the question. Why do you insist on ignoring that?

Well, you gave me **** earlier for leaving out the word "progress". I didn't want to draw your ire for failing to mention relevant features, even if I mistakeningly thought they could be assumed.

Most of the new tablet PC offerings provide both touch screen and stylus input. (Perhaps you didn't look at the specs on the several which have been mentioned in this thread.) Having used both I have to say that if forced to choose between one or the other I would not hesitate to choose the stylus. Touch input is like finger-painting by comparison.

Well, you were specifically referring to the device you used in 2004 when you made your comment. I suppose it is my fault for not re-quoting your exact words. I didn't want to appear as though I was insisting on ignoring that, though. Oh dear.

But you see, with a full function device you can have both.

As I can with my iPad. It makes the biggest difference with my younger daughter who uses my iPad for artwork (so somewhat more analogous to your use). Depending upon what she is trying to accomplish, she uses her fingers or a stylus. I type faster than I write anyways, so I find I don't use the stylus as an input device.

Battery life is certainly a consideration. How much battery life would Apple have sacrificed by provided a more full featured OS in the iPad?

I don't know. I do have a clear idea of what trade-off I'd be willing to accept, though.

Your applet argument is ridiculous on the face of it. People write those things because the platform they're addressing won't support all the software that's already out there for a more capable device.

I like the app market for a number of reasons. It was much cheaper for me to buy the programs I needed than it would have been to buy the full function programs. If I have to buy something anyway, I don't really care that I am buying it for a different OS. It would matter if it was part of a family or work package and I could go ahead and install it on a new machine free. But the one program which would represent a duplication under those circumstances only cost me $15 (that was my biggest and most important purchase). The rest of the stuff has been free or at most a few dollars and/or not something I owned anyway. And most of them are available because of the creation of this market, rather than as something which has been out there all along.

Sure, I can open a web browser and google up an image of the periodic table. And I can go on to google info on any particular element. But it's way faster and easier to use an app for that. And before the iPhone/iPad, there wasn't.

Linda

 

[Wowbagger]

The HCR wasn't application dependent.

I think this is a point worth emphasizing: The handwriting recognition system could be used practically anywhere you could use keyboard input!

If you took whole "legal-pad" sized pages of notes, you could even search for words written in your handwriting.

There will probably come a day when the iPads and Galaxy Tabs have a processor capable of doing this as effectively. But, for now, this is one nifty feature you will only find on the Tablet PCs.

I was as skeptical as anyone when I first started using it.

My very first tablet (bought in 2003) was a refurbished one, for this very reason, by the way.

And one minor correction to make: I discovered that my "2007 model" tablet was actually purchased in 2006. I think I remembered it as "2007" because that was the version of Microsoft Office that was on it. Funny, eh?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Well, you were specifically referring to the device you used in 2004 when you made your comment. I suppose it is my fault for not re-quoting your exact words. I didn't want to appear as though I was insisting on ignoring that, though. Oh dear.

<snip>

What features did your iPad have in 2004?

(If we're going to compare point for point on that basis.)

 

[fls]

What features did your iPad have in 2004?

(If we're going to compare point for point on that basis.)

I suspect the iPad at that point consisted of a twinkle in Steve Jobs eye.

I was a bit surprised that you chose that gizmo for your example (of a better choice for the iPad buyer). I'd be happy to look at something you think is a more appropriate example.

Linda

 

[quadraginta]

I suspect the iPad at that point consisted of a twinkle in Steve Jobs eye.

I was a bit surprised that you chose that gizmo for your example (of a better choice for the iPad buyer). I'd be happy to look at something you think is a more appropriate example.

Linda

I didn't choose it as an example, I described it as the device which I had a great deal of personal experience with.

The point I've been trying to make has nothing to do with iPad buyers specifically. Your insistence on veering into the personal is unsettling. I get the feeling I am becoming collateral damage in some sort of Apple fanboy ire.

If someone else of Apple's marketing muscle in the consumer PC arena had been the one to choose to release such a device with the fanfare and hype that Apple did with the iPad I would have been equally critical.

And equally appreciative. You seem to keep overlooking that part. I think it's just dandy that a tablet "for the rest of them" came out on the market. You and I are not really far apart in our views on this. (I believe I mentioned that before. ) My objection to the "toy" appellation is a strong as yours. I just think that it is unfortunate that Apple chose not to offer a more capable device. I happen to believe that they could have without a significant impact on the price point they were aiming for.

 

[fls]

I didn't choose it as an example, I described it as the device which I had a great deal of personal experience with.

Sorry. I asked for an example of a gizmo which would be a better choice, and you replied with your 2004 device. I did not realize you did not intend it as an answer to my question.

The point I've been trying to make has nothing to do with iPad buyers specifically. Your insistence on veering into the personal is unsettling. I get the feeling I am becoming collateral damage in some sort of Apple fanboy ire.

Sorry. It confused me when you quoted my question and then made a statement about your device. I thought you were answering my question about which gizmo would be a better choice for the average consumer (which had been in reference to iPad buyers). My fault for tracking the conversation.

If someone else of Apple's marketing muscle in the consumer PC arena had been the one to choose to release such a device with the fanfare and hype that Apple did with the iPad I would have been equally critical.

And equally appreciative. You seem to keep overlooking that part. I think it's just dandy that a tablet "for the rest of them" came out on the market. You and I are not really far apart in our views on this. (I believe I mentioned that before. ) My objection to the "toy" appellation is a strong as yours. I just think that it is unfortunate that Apple chose not to offer a more capable device. I happen to believe that they could have without a significant impact on the price point they were aiming for.

It would be easier to believe if examples exist.

Linda

 

[Kid Eager]

meh. My VW Golf GTI is hamstrung and lobotomised because it can't tow a container, and there's nowhere to mount a big bullbar like I can put on my rig.

Let's face it, it's a toy...

 

[Wowbagger]

It would be easier to believe if examples exist.

Many Android phones, such as the Incredible, Evo, etc. have more capabilities than the iPhone 4, at a similar price point.

 

[Kid Eager]

Many Android phones, such as the Incredible, Evo, etc. have more capabilities than the iPhone 4, at a similar price point.

Capabilities don't necessarily translate to value in the eyes of the customer.

Having a particular feature or capability only counts if they care about it, in the context of the outcome they want to achieve.

I'm one of those people who are not excited by Android and iPhone etc, as all I want my mobile phone to do well is make phone calls. Being able to be contacted by e-mail anytime anywhere is my idea of hell. The smart phone form factor and features are a turn-off.

 

[Wowbagger]

Capabilities don't necessarily translate to value in the eyes of the customer.

Right. But, I was responding to this:

I just think that it is unfortunate that Apple chose not to offer a more capable device. I happen to believe that they could have without a significant impact on the price point they were aiming for.

It would be easier to believe if examples exist.

I gave example to illustrate this, in the smart phone market. There is no technical reason why Apple limited their devices' capabilities. What is most unfortunate is that the iPhone users don't know what they are missing, that Android can give them. This, of course, applies to those who want smartphones, and not those who want a conventional phone.

 

[fls]

I gave example to illustrate this, in the smart phone market. There is no technical reason why Apple limited their devices' capabilities. What is most unfortunate is that the iPhone users don't know what they are missing, that Android can give them. This, of course, applies to those who want smartphones, and not those who want a conventional phone.

Hmmm. I use both and I hadn't really noticed. Except I like the camera flash on the Droid.

Linda

 

[fls]

I gave example to illustrate this, in the smart phone market. There is no technical reason why Apple limited their devices' capabilities. What is most unfortunate is that the iPhone users don't know what they are missing, that Android can give them. This, of course, applies to those who want smartphones, and not those who want a conventional phone.

Do you think the current offerings from Droid would have been here had there been no iPhone?

Linda

 

[Sciwoman]

Do you think the current offerings from Droid would have been here had there been no iPhone?

Linda

I think there would have been eventually. Before iPhone's there were Blackberries and that market was growing. Blackberry also has a rather extensive app market.