Quote:
Originally Posted by Theowne
Some smartphones also crash. I think people are really overlooking the fact that Jobs wasn't trying to create a tablet or a PC. He was trying to create an "appliance", a reliable media consumption device for the mainstream. A device that your grandmother could pick up and use without thinking, "this is a computer". In this scenario, multitasking isn't necessary, and Apple is able to make the device more reliable and predictable without it. Same goes for flash content.
Don't get me wrong, thats the same reason I would not need or want one. But I, or other PC enthusiasts, am not the market for this new device.
|
Agreed... but I'm trying to figure who would NOT want to "read mail, have music playing, and a google-search" running at the same time.
Think about it. My grandma is running her iTune app or just running an MP3 tune ... and decides she wants to browse something she just thought of. Or wants to email something that just popped into her head.
The iPad apparently can't do that - that IS the typical scenario for 'appliance people'.
Help me here... in my local survey, NONE of my computer-
illiterate friends say they'll buy a device that can't handle more than one thing at a time. At my age, I have a fair number of peers who qualify as compu-challenged.
The -save- here would be if there were a single executable they were developing (like the old Lotus Symphony or a mutated OpenOffice) that handled these things. Haven't heard anything about that though.
I can think of all sorts of *business* uses for an iPad. It'd be like a totally reprogrammable app hand-held device for warehousing, inventory, pharmacy apps, etc. Run the one business app and its good.