MSI Will Launch iPad Alternative 756
itwbennett writes "Underwhelmed by the iPad? Don't give up on tablets just yet, says blogger Peter Smith. MSI has a tablet coming in the second half of 2010 that measures up on price and size and addresses a lot of the iPad's most noted shortcomings. 'The iPad runs iPhone OS while the MSI runs Android,' writes Smith. 'That means the MSI will multitask of course, and Flash support in Android should be a given by launch time (though that isn't certain). It has a camera. It's running on an Nvidia Tegra2 chip which Ars Technica suggests puts it on par with the iPad's A4 as far as computing horsepower. And of course Android doesn't live in a walled garden.'" The post notes that the MSI device does not support multitouch in its built-in apps. Still, would an Android-powered iPad-alike tempt you?
Update: 01/29 17:58 GMT by KD : Dave Altavilla suggests Hot Hardware's coverage of Asus's recently announced tablet, also based on the Tegra2 chip.
Update: 01/29 17:58 GMT by KD : Dave Altavilla suggests Hot Hardware's coverage of Asus's recently announced tablet, also based on the Tegra2 chip.
Maybe.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it has more promise than the iWidgets do.
It's a more open platform which IMHO gives it more potential.
Re:multitouch? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to sound like a OSS or Google fanboy, I really am serious, what does WinMo provide that Android lacks ?
Geeks miss the point again. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about "do more things," it's about "do very few things better."
That's why Apple wins.
My wife asked about the iPad last night (she owns a netbook right now) and now she's drooling over one. Why? It doesn't have "files." It doesn't have "windows." She won't have to worry about "flash drives." And so on. She was so excited about all the things it didn't have (and that she therefore didn't have to worry about) that she was disappointed when I told her they weren't in the Apple Store in Manhattan yet.
Meanwhile, the geeks are running around blasting Apple products for all the things they "don't have" and recommending complex alternatives.
That's why Apple is making $$$ these days. Because they're removing 60 percent of the features and making the remaining 40 percent configuration free and so polished they make your eyes hurt.
Re:multitouch? (Score:1, Insightful)
Not to sound like a OSS or Google fanboy, I really am serious, what does WinMo provide that Android lacks ?
Good apps? It's easier to develop for as you can write apps in C, C++, etc instead of subset of resource hogging Java.
Re:Geeks miss the point again. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an MSI Wind (a hackintosh) that I love but it is not the same thing as a tablet. Too many people view a tablet as "a computer that is just the screen." Apple has gambled (and I am increasingly thinking they're right on target) that a tablet is not a computer - it's a computing device. If you want a computer, you'll use a laptop or desktop. Those already exist and there are hundreds of choices available. A tablet, however, is an ultra-mobile device capable of very specific computing tasks.
In short, I agree - it's about doing few things better. That's why I think the iPad (hate that name) is going to do pretty well as it differentiates itself from the deluge of "computer in tablet form" offerings from other companies. It's not a computer in tablet form - it's a tablet.
Re:"Walled garden"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't know the meaning of a common semi-technical phrase [wikipedia.org], it's probably better to just look it up, than to loudly proclaim what you don't know.
Asking the wrong question (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, actually, the post asks the right question in the wrong place.
The question is not what'd be popular on Slashdot - we're not representative of the wider population by almost any stretch of the imagination. Of course Slashdotters want multitasking, want to be able to install ssh, want the option to run their own web server on the thing. Slashdotters will want the darn tablet to support FLAC and Ogg Vorbis/Theora.
But the things that'd make this really popular with Slashdotters are not the same things that'll make a tablet a commercial success. It's pretty obvious the majority of people don't care about multitasking (as long as they can listen to their tunes while they do other things - which is true of the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, and most any other device), nor about Apple's "walled garden". What they do care about is the availability of the apps they want and that the features the tablet offers are easy to use and work well.
Re:Geeks miss the point again. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with your analysis as to why the Apple iDevices sell so well, I have to state that "the geeks" aren't interested simply in buying from the company that has the best business model... we just want something that works the way we want. We couldn't care less if our purchase includes us in part of a smug team of iTards or anti-Mac... we just want to know if this tablet has the features we require. Example:
I don't need a camera.
I need multi-tasking.
I prefer to have a modable interface to save CPU/Battery power (less is more)
I want an SD or USB port
I need 3G
I need a text and email program.
I need it to be less than $600.
I don't care what anyone else wants nor how successful the company will be (or if it "wins" in the tablet arena)
etc...
Re:Geeks miss the point again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the geeks are running around blasting Apple products for all the things they "don't have" and recommending complex alternatives.
Wait, so multitasking is a "complex alternative"? Please.
Yes, Apple's tablet is meant to be a computing appliance. But ffs, no fucking user-level multitasking? Christ, people bitched and complained about PalmOS and it's lack of multitasking, and now you're cheering it on like it's some kind of feature. It's fucking baffling.
That and the fact that the iPad is a completely closed off system puts it off my list. No, I don't believe a tablet must be a general purpose computer. But I do believe that I should at least be able to install what I want on it from whatever source I like, and I should be able to run more than one fucking application at the same damn time.
I've had a long-running problem (Score:3, Insightful)
with my wife hating multitasking. She never closes a thing (tab, application, etc.) and invariably runs out of memory. Often, there are dozens of background processes. Her hard drive starts to thrash. Things grind to a halt. I get called.
I've tried to explain about things taking up memory, the problem of lots of background applications, the problem of never closing applications. She doesn't want to know what memory even IS. "Why is the computer so stupid," she wants to know, "that it can't figure out that I only care about what I'm working on RIGHT NOW?"
Say what you want, but a) she's my wife, b) she's rather beautiful, c) it's absolutely impossible to even try to say "okay, let me explain to you why..." and d) Apple's gonna continue to make bank selling devices to people just like her.
Re:On Par? (Score:5, Insightful)
"most likely has", "is most likely several times that", "power consumption is also claimed to be several times lower than"
Oh! the facts!
Fact is: no official info has been given about the internals of the A4, only rumors. And yet you come to the conclussion that the Tegra 2 is faster both GPU and CPU wise, and yet
consumes less power. And you criticize sites of being affected by a RTD -did you mean RDF-? maybe you are also in some kind of RDF yourself, of another kind.
When a Tegra 2 tablet is released you will be able to compare the systems. Until them saying one is better than the other is just speculation. Well, in fact it is quite easy to compare
them right now: they have the same performance and the same power consumption: 0, as you can not get either one.
Re:Geeks miss the point again. (Score:3, Insightful)
... now she's drooling over one. Why? It doesn't have "files." It doesn't have "windows." She won't have to worry about "flash drives." And so on. She was so excited about all the things it didn't have (and that she therefore didn't have to worry about) that she was disappointed when I told her they weren't in the Apple Store in Manhattan yet.
You just wait till she actually uses one for an extended period of time. I strongly suspect that she'll suddenly find out that all those "complicated things" such as files and multitasking were actually very handy to have.
Re:Touch is just nice (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Only if it has an IPS panel. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet here you are on /.
Re:Acer (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe Apple decided that the interface with tablets wasn't up to snuff for being a general purpose computer but it could work as a device with specific uses in mind. Apple seems to care about the user experience and they probably figured out that by pissing off the small percentage of people like you they could provide a sellable experience to everyone else.
Trying to be all things to all people generally doesn't work out well. Doing a limited selection of things but doing them well tends to be the better choice. (Do you complain that your chef's knife doesn't have a saw and screwdriver and awl and flashlight?)
Re:Geeks miss the point again. (Score:1, Insightful)
The difference is that you don't have to go through the app store to install software. Your friend can build you an app and you put it on your device, with no worries of it ever being removed. Or you can make your own app without having to pay a licensing fee or buying a Mac (Windows, Linux, Mac for Android).
So, where is Android closed, again?
Re:Touch is just nice (Score:4, Insightful)
A better touchscreen interface is the difference between an app
being something that you are vaguely aware of but never use vs.
something that you use constantly. Your basic input devices are
by no means trivial.
If Apple maintains this edge, it will be hard for competitors that
are more functional in other areas to get any anywhere.
Re:I've had a long-running problem (Score:3, Insightful)
d) Apple's gonna continue to make bank selling devices to people just like her.
Agreed. However, this is a geek community. We like things like multi-tasking and open platforms. This article isn't about whether Apple will continue to make a ton of money selling intentionally simplified/restricted devices to the masses. It's about an alternative for us. Geeks don't "miss the point" about certain Apple products. Some of us just don't like them because they don't have what we want (or they cost more than their equivalents) in that kind of device.
Re:Touch is just nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, cause when i am on a packed train, all i want to do it talk my private message into my phone :)
Voice recognition is over hyped, and it will not work as a sole means for data entry, ever.
Missing the point again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, it's "her own fucking problem" and it looks like iPad is how she's going to solve it, judging by her excitement at watching the YouTube videos and my answers to her questions about it last night. I'm sure you don't care.
Maybe you think she's an idiot. Maybe I'm really bad at explaining. Both of those things have little to do with my suggestion that geeks will likely continue to wonder until the end of time why not everyone wants a bare/caseless single board computer that fits inside a coffee cup, runs embedded Linux, and is hackable for umpteen million projects.
I'm just ruminating on all the Slashdot anti-Apple posting and the apparent geek frustration at the success of Apple.
A: "Apple sucks!"
B: "Regular people like Apple!"
A: "But Apple isn't a hackable Linux embedded device with hooks for 23 language APIs!"
B: "Regular people don't want that!"
A: "Then regular people are really stupid and deserve to be dominated and reamed!"
B: "?!!?"
A: "By the way, why don't people like us, and why can't I get a girlfriend?"
Re:Acer (Score:3, Insightful)
[...] they probably figured out that by pissing off the small percentage of people like you they could provide a sellable experience to everyone else.
I agree with you except for this part, because it seems that by playing on the massive hype, Apple have disappointed more than a small percentage of people, meanwhile the "everyone else" that this will appeal to is likely to be a much smaller niche market. You can't afford to disappoint a massive section of your potential/existing market even if it does gain you the undying adoration of a very small majority of said market. At least the previous devices (iPod, Air, iPhone, et al) had more than niche market appeal.
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Acer:
$420
3 lbs
6 hour battery life
8 in x 11.2 in x 1.18 in
No touchscreen
Plastic case with lower coefficient of friction
iPad:
$499
1.6 lbs
10 hour battery life
7.5 x 9.5 in x 0.5 in
Touchscreen
Aluminum case with higher coefficient of friction
The fact that the iPad is half the weight, half the thickness, and has almost 2x the battery life is not something you can easily ignore in a device who's primary goal is to be portable. To setup a litmus test, try to argue that using a netbook to reply to an email while walking through an airport is less awkward than using a touchscreen tablet in the same situation.
So its for people too stupid to use a computer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course I would not expect you tell your wife that.
Really, your wife is really really ignorant or just really good at selling you on her buying a new toy.
I know lots of people who are bad with computers, I certainly do my best to make sure they don't touch one
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not really (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've had a long-running problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny you should mention that...OSX is actually worse at leaving things running unintentionally :)
However with the iPad when she wants to go check that website while she's writing something...oh...wait, your document closed? Your browser isn't on the page you spent 15 minutes drilling down to?
No offense to you or your wife, but if she wants to use a computer she needs to learn how. If she refuses, she perpetuates her frustration when things don't work as she things they should. If she really never *ever* refers back to old windows then tell her to hit the X instead of the _
I think the iPad will be more useful as an output device...a la ST:TNG pads. But it's limited usefulness in other regards makes it a very expensive toy that's too big to carry everywhere. Instead of being a 'just right' middle ground i think it's a 'just wrong' small and large product. Heck, even my 1st gen Sony e-reader has a headphones jack.
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
"I've yet to see an app that makes me think, "Oh- I have to have that, it is so much better than using a mouse/keyboard/trackpad/etc."
Microsoft One-Note. It's the killer tablet app.
Than and a program to let you pen markup PDF files. I have switched to only carrying a tablet into meetings because of those two apps. Plus I added a nice little microphone http://www.sourcingmap.com/mini-small-mic-microphone-for-laptop-line-chat-p-29294.html [sourcingmap.com] to the mic in plug and record the meeting audio as I sit there.
You cant look at a tablet as a pc or a laptop replacement. it's a limited use tool, leverage it's advantages and you really see what it's good at.
Re:I've had a long-running problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what you want, but a) she's my wife, b) she's rather beautiful, c) it's absolutely impossible to even try to say "okay, let me explain to you why..." and d) Apple's gonna continue to make bank selling devices to people just like her.
And then when she says "Why can't my stupid email program stay open while I'm browsing the web on this thing", your answer will be "well, you said you hated multitasking... now lie in the bed you made".
The simple fact is, everyone multitasks *every day* with their computer. They may not realize that's what they're doing, but when MSN and their email program are twiddling their thumbs in the background while they're browsing the web and listening to a little music on iTunes, they're multitasking. The fact that the iPad doesn't allow for this kind of operation is simply absurd, given it's seemingly designed for the type of person who sits down and browses the web for twenty to thirty minutes at a pop (as opposed to the five minutes someone spends on their iPhone) and wants to stay connected while they're doing it.
But Apple has solved that problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every iPhone app I have (yes, that's the iPhone famous for "not multitasking") stores complete state information when it exits.
Safari comes back with all the same tabs and windows open. It doesn't have to reload them. It is scrolled to exactly the same place I was at. Partially filled out forms are still partially filled out.
The document I was working on in DocsToGo is exactly the way it looked (with the cursor in exactly the same place).
It's COMPLETELY state-stable and FAST, there's no "saving state" when you switch applications, because they store their state continuously as it evolves.
I am a power Linux user. I HAVE a home-built hardware RAID sitting here on my desktop, along with a triple-head display.
I run from the updates-testing repos on Fedora. I have patched my own radeon_drv.so Xorg module to fix the infamous compositing corruption bug (for those who care, when doing copy-from-screen, first do a test to see if the bitmap being copied is smaller than 32 pixels; if it is, don't copy-from, because the bitmap hasn't made it into the buffer yet to be copied back from).
I'm the sort you'd think would be bugged as hell with "no multitasking."
Only I'm totally not. As far as I'm concerned, for an interface on a tiny screen (where you're unlikely to have multiple windows onscreen at once), perfect stateful information is damn close to multitasking.
The only thing that can't be approximated is background processes (i.e. start it and let it compute while I work on something else), but it's not like I'm going to do a 20-day render on my iPhone, is it? Nor on my iPad.
Re:Geeks miss the point again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point again. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're the one missing the point here.
Sure, I *can* understand why she would like to get an iPad. I don't wonder at all. The point is that, especially when it is taken to such extreme, it is, well, utterly ridiculous.
Simplifying the user interface is one thing -- it's what people should aim at, especially for mobile devices. However:
1. It's orthogonal to whether the device is friendly to the advanced user (e.g. whether it is "hackable", what a silly word). But you're making it sound like this is somehow incompatible with a simple friendly user interface... Oh, and by the way it's the advanced user who one calls for help.
2. There is simplification and there is extreme inability to learn to do simply things such as closing an application. The second is especially ludicrous when it's combined with sacrificing a fundamental feature that almost all computer users utilize. Your claim that the fact that it is lacking is "feature" is laughable.
Your example with multitasking is bad. Sorry, your wife is one of the few. Even the most non-savvy users I've seen want to open more than one app at a time.
Um, why do you think it's a computer (Score:3, Insightful)
rather than a better Kindle?
In fact, you're imposing your own arbitrary perspectives.
The Kindle is also your basic good old fashioned Von Neumann architecture computer with inputs and outputs. Even a keyboard and a display, in fact.
So why is the iPad a "poor computer" and not an "insanely great Kindle?"
In fact, why is it either?
I have a Kindle. I love it. I use it to read books.
I have a computer. I love it. I use it to manage data, code, and do research.
I have an iPhone. I love it. I use it to web browse, email, Facebook, and watch YouTube videos.
I don't walk around musing about how the computer is the "real" computer and the other two are just pale imitations of it, or how the Kindle is the "real" Kindle and the other two are just pale imitations of it, etc.
iPad is a device with specific properties and limitations that will serve some users well and other users not at all. The latter should not buy it. But I suspect that members of the latter group who have been marching around on /. for two days making fun of iPad and suggesting either that (1) nobody will buy it or (2) that nobody should buy it are a little myopic, to say the least.
Re:Geeks miss the point again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure wish the trolls would go back under their bridge. The fact that so many Apple trolls are working so hard pretty means they admit Android is superior; else why work so hard to FUD it? Exactly.
For example, app developers on Android can publish without approval, but so can malware developers.
This is true for Apple too. The difference is its easier and costs less to develop for Android. Android is open. Apple is closed. Apple's vetting service is not necessarily in place to prevent trojans. Its in place to protect their property; which is the iPhone its running on. Its hardly unreasonable to believe a trojan can make it past Apple. The only difference is, you'd have to be more ballsy to try.
Basically your position boils down to freedom is bad. People can come up to you and kill you right now so your argument is that no one should have that freedom. Sure its illegal, but they have the freedom to do so. They can freely obtain weapons. They can freely travel to your location. No free society is completely safe. To be clear, this is not a threat - just making a point. The point being, a free society has an inherent risk and certain responsibilities are therefore assumed.
Not to mention, Android limits the amount of disk space for installable apps to something less than 256MB. You can forget about apps that require a large local database, or other large apps like games.
Not true. Even pragmatically its not true. The limits can be changed. But, your comment is completely ignoring the fact that applications are encouraged to use external storage for content. Only absolute dolts would consider 16GB-32GB (and growing) to be a serious limit for a hand held device. Realistically, you're not likely to find an Android application which uses more than a couple dozen MB of internal storage, whereby the rest is deferred to external storage. Just because Android is different and purposely encourages a superior solution doesn't make it bad.
Contrary to your assertions, different is not bad. Freedom is not bad. With freedom comes personal responsibility. It seems in addition to hating freedom, you personally refuse to accept any type of responsibility. In a free society you have that right - but it still makes you useless to society.
Re:But Apple has solved that problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Only I'm totally not. As far as I'm concerned, for an interface on a tiny screen (where you're unlikely to have multiple windows onscreen at once), perfect stateful information is damn close to multitasking.
1990 called and wants it's Palm Pilot back.
If people were happy about this mode of operation, they wouldn't have bitched about PalmOS for the last two decades.
Re:Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
_No_ _vendor_ _lock_ _in_. No apple store only.
So how do you write apps for the iPad? Do you have to get your builds approved by the Apple Store before you can test them?
Re:Geeks miss the point again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank goodness there hasn't been any malware on iPhone, eh? Oh, wait, never mind [computerworld.com].
Apple's control over iPhone apps isn't to protect the user or the network; it's to protect Apple's revenue stream [gizmodo.com]. They're a phone and fart app company that also makes computers.
Re:Geeks miss the point again. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't need a camera.
Skype/VOIP etc is going to be enabled over 3G as well as WIFI. A simple front-mounted camera for video chat support would have been nice.
I need multi-tasking.
Most people are not going to do serious multitasking on a tablet - but they will occasionally switch from one app to check something else out and then switch back. If you can suspend your app *AND* return to your previous state in it easily, that should be good enough. It's the lack of consistent "return to previous state" for iPhone apps that make the multi-tasking seem like it would be necessary. We don't need true "multitasking" of running processes in the background for the most part (push msgs where you can return to previous state should work fine for most people) and Apple can enable the background processing for apps that need it.
I want an SD or USB port
I agree both of those should be build in. You can get them but they're ugly dongles that attach to the iPod Dock connector.
Re:Touch is just nice (Score:3, Insightful)
The downside to using a conductive stylus is that performance-wise they don't even come close to comparing to a "real" active digitizer (like a wacom tablet) so those of us interested in using a tablet as a digital sketchbook (cmd/ctrl+z beat using an eraser any day since your document doesn't get worn out when you erase that damn line for the 20th time because it's just not right). Using a conductive stylus for drawing is like using crayons for drawing, it may work for certain tasks but it's very limited and with a proper digitizer and good software you can get the "crayon effect" anyway (and even better since you'll have pressure sensitivity).
Incidentally the main reason I'm disappointed with the iPad is that I was hoping for something like a cross between the iPad and Axiotron's Modbook, scaled-down performance and light-weight while still having a stylus.
/Mikael
It's an easy mistake (Score:3, Insightful)
"For a Mac user it is obvious and when they switch to Windows they wonder why when they try to close one window every other window with that app closes too."
The "shutdown" button isn't used to close the current window.
Target Market (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that geeks here on slashdot don't seem to understand is the concept of "target market". Often times they assume that just because a product doesn't have some geek feature that they would like, they think the product cannot possibly succeed in the larger population in general. Geeks here on slashdot want certain features. Some of them want more control and configurability. These are not bad things; but geeks here have to understand that they are not everyone. General consumers want different things.
Where Apple has succeeded in the past, contrary to the dire predictions of geeks, is that Apple does not design their products for geeks. They design their products for a target audience. Most of their products are designed for average consumers.
MP3 players existed before Apple. When Apple entered the market, there were two distinct categories: large HD players with GB capacities that were the size of portable CD players and smaller pocket-sized flash RAM players that could hold at most 128MB. While the iPod didn't have all the technical features that geeks here wanted (some of which were not included in other players for years), Apple focused on other aspects which appealed to average consumers. First it was only slightly larger than the flash RAM players but could nearly as much as the larger players. Second, to get music onto a player back then was a pain which required the patience and know-how of a geek. You had to find a ripper and then an encoder which was separate of the program that managed loading the music onto the player. Apple worked on making the music transfer as simple as possible. iTunes did all three.
Years ago, Apple released the MacBook Air. This product was different from other Apple products as it was designed for a different target audience than the average consumer. The MacBook is designed for average consumers; the Air is designed for road warriors who need a lighter computer and some computing needs. But for most slashdot geeks, since it wasn't powerful to decode the human genome instanteously and at the same time, weighed more than a feather, they deemed it a failure.
In 2007, Apple released the iPhone. It was a smartphone designed for average consumers. Unlike the Blackberry, the iPhone was not intended for business or corporate users. Again, the exlusion of a long list of technical features slashdot geeks wanted meant it was doomed to fail.
Some of the same criticisms are being repeated again with the iPad:
Here's where I see this product's market: Those who want more capabilities than a Kindle but not as much as a laptop. Some examples that come of the top of my head: School lessons, digital magazines, personal media players. Basically, the iPad is an appliance not a computer.
Re:Not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Y'know, I love my netbook, but there are some times that it really just doesn't do it for me. Like in a yaris, at night, while someone else is driving down a gravel road. The position you're in is uncomfortable. The keyboard is awkward. The trackpad is tiny and useless when you're bouncing around.
That seems like a pretty high bar. Tiny uncomfortable vehicle, at night, on a bumpy gravel road? It could be that this is one of those times that a person puts the computing devices away. Under those conditions, it may also be difficult to even read a paperback.
Re:Missing the point again. (Score:1, Insightful)
Your example with multitasking is bad. Sorry, your wife is one of the few. Even the most non-savvy users I've seen want to open more than one app at a time.
It is a mystery to me how people who can be so condescending about computer use can be so wrong. How can so many geeks hear "no multitasking" and completely misunderstand it? Yes, the iPhone/iPod/iPad does not multitask. Yes, most users have multiple applications open at once on their computer. But how do these two facts fit together?
In the iPhone/iPod/iPad family, you are only going to see one application at a time, right? So, what would it mean to "run more than one app at a time"? It would mean that when I go the web browser it is still looking at the page where I left off, when I go to my mail it is on the same message, when I open some document, I'm at the same place where I left off. But this is all just state, right? If I can switch instantly and have the app look the same as when I left, is it really different from multitasking? Guess what, despite what you and many others on here seem to believe, Apple's developers aren't complete idiots - this is exactly the behavior exhibited by the iPhone/iPod/iPad family.
The real cost of not having multitasking is that I can't run processes in the background (you know, for all of the rendering and compiling I'm doing on these devices), and I can't maintain persistent communication connections. This last is a bit of a drag, but is somewhat alleviated by the recent introduction of push protocols. Not, perhaps, as big a deal as you thought?
Re:Touch is just nice (Score:3, Insightful)
"A flatscreen TV is basically just an iMac with a bunch of features removed."
How does removing features from an iMac add a TV tuner?
Re:Only if it has an IPS panel. (Score:3, Insightful)
An IPS panel is certainly neat, but as you can't really use the ipad for anything that actually demands that kind of screen
You mean like viewing photos and showing it to people who may not be standing directly in front of it? Because the primary benefits of IPS are better color, and greater viewing angle.
Of course, it's not just photos which will benefit. Video, web, and pretty much anything you will see on the screen (and given that you're presumably going to be looking at the screen while you use it, that's pretty much everything) will benefit.
Re:What On Earth Is An Appliance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because some times people with disposable income are willing to pay extra for a product that does particular things well. I could cook my dinner every night on piece of plate steel over a firepit, but I still thought it made sense to buy some nice pots and pans, and a slow cooker, and a microwave, etc.