Ipad Unveiling Right NOW

[YAWN]

it lacks really basic features I would want in a device that will supposedly replace the laptop.

its not meant to replace laptops..

[YAWN]

Old media wins battle in ebook war as Amazon raises prices to match Apple

So basically apples move forced amazons hand to increase the prices. what that guy in the blog thing i posted was saying was that apple offered a deal in which the publishers make less money selling it at the apple price than they currently do with amazon selling it at the lower price. But they all jumped on board.

He also made a reference to when all the major record labels came at apple and demanded that they should raise the prices on the itunes store of recent releases. Jobs told them to **** off and go elsewhere or sign a new deal with the same prices; which they did.

[rezznor]

Two wrong ways to make a tablet:

http://gizmodo.com/5461767/the-two-w...-make-a-tablet

this is a long but excellent read

The Two Wrong Ways To Make a Tablet

Tablets today are thought to be made in one of two ways: Upsizing a smartphone or downsizing a laptop. Many of these new tablets are decent, but both methods render something less than the perfect tablet.

These tablets—not the convertible laptops of the past decade, but real single-pane slate-like ones—are in various stages of development, and have various operating systems. You have your iPad, JooJoo, a bunch of Android tablets, HP's slate, the as-yet-unseen Chrome OS tablets, the equally mysterious Courier, and the Microsoft-partner tablets that currently run a reasonably full version of Windows 7. You can easily categorize nearly all of these into two basic design philosophies: The iPad and Android tablets come from platforms originally designed with smartphones in mind; the Windows 7 tablets fully embrace the traditional desktop-metaphor OS; the Chrome OS and JooJoo strip out most of the desktop, leaving—perhaps awkwardly—just the browser.

But what about the Courier? If there is such a thing as a "third" option, it's what Microsoft dreamed up over the last year. Microsoft, already has its fingers in both ends of the pie, but Courier represents a truly different envisioning. Could the tablet that we've really been waiting for come from Redmond? Maybe, but at the moment the fate of Courier isn't clear at all.
Making Phones Bigger

First you have the method of taking a phone interface and making it bigger. That's the iPad, the Android tablets and, in some modes, Lenovo's Ideapad U1. Android tablets are basically doing an upscaling of the base Android interface, whereas the iPad also makes customized first-party apps to take advantage of the increased screen space. Both can theoretically run all the apps their little brothers can. Lenovo is also doing something very similar by creating a completely customized ground-up OS that's sorta widget-based, which is basically a smartphone in everything but name. (When docked, the U1 tablet becomes a screen for a Windows computer, but that's another story.)

So far, going up from a phone OS seems to be the better bet, compared to simplifying a desktop-style OS. But the phone experience is far from perfect.

When you work off of a smartphone base, you theoretically already have the touch interface locked in, because Android, iPhone, Palm and other smartphones now eschew the skinny stylus for your fat finger. It's a more natural pointing device for a tablet, since you can hold the device in one hand while pointing at it with the other. If you were to use a stylus, you'd have to grip the tablet with your forearm, like a watermelon or a baby, in order to provide a stable enough surface to press down upon with a pen.

Also, because you're working with a phone-up methodology, you get to sell a tablet relatively cheap by using high-end phone parts rather than low-end netbook parts. For example, you have Android tablets that are made from ARM processors and Nvidia Tegra graphics, which are basically meant to run high-end phones. Then there's the Apple A4 processor, which is also ARM-based.

So for these manufacturers, they already have the type of modularized applications with minimal multitasking (in Apple's case, basically none) that can run decently well on low-powered hardware. Plus, this type of system requirements basically guarantees that you'll have a better battery life than the alternative.

Jesus already sung much of the praises of this approach when he correctly surmised that the iPad would have this style of operating system. But what about the negatives?

If you're building a tablet from a phone OS, you would fail to have a completely stand-alone device, in the sense that a laptop is completely standalone. You couldn't have file access to dump photos, video and other media onto, you'd have to sync it to something else once in a while to get everything you need. And you have to go through a marketplace instead of installing stuff like a computer.

There is also no real way for apps to interact with each other. There's copy and paste on smartphones, and certain apps can read data files from certain other apps (like the contact list), but there's no way to interact like dragging and dropping files across applications. In the iPhone, you can't even multitask to work on two things simultaneously. You can on Android, but there's minimal interaction between applications. That's not saying it can't be done, it's just not so entrenched in the base OS or the base philosophy that application developers don't do it very often. If the OS maker doesn't do it, developers won't either.

Also, because phones are a very isolated experience, App Stores make it much easier to find apps that are both customized for your device and safe to install. This is great for phones, since stability is important, but when you're getting into higher-performance devices, you want the ability to choose what apps you want, not just pick from the ones that Apple or Google deem OK for you to consume. And since this kind of tablet is adapted from the phone ecosystem, that's the only choice you have.

To have a very good experience on any sort of serious computing device (not a phone), you need interactivity. An example on the Mac is the way your Mail application knows if someone is online in iChat, and shows a little light by his name, telling you that you can just IM him instead of emailing. Interactivity like this is part of the base design experience of Courier, judging on the videos we posted. You can move parts of each application easily into any other application, and each piece knows what's being dumped onto it. The current state of phones can't, and don't this co-mingling philosophy engrained into it.

[rezznor]

Peripherals is something else a phone-based OS can't handle well. You're limited to a specific number of device accessories that needs to be vetted in order to ensure compatibility. Even the iPad, which has a few more accessories than the iPhone (like a keyboard), doesn't have nearly the amount of compatibility as a desktop. A tablet needs to learn this lesson from desktops in order to be truly useful. Plug in a keyboard? Sure. A firewire camera to have the device act as a target storage device? Absolutely. Another tablet, so you can have twice the amount of display area? Why the hell not. Print? Yes.

All this stuff is doable on phone devices, if developers wanted to. Hell, anything is possible if you want it to be. None of this stuff is against the laws of physics, it's just a matter of wanting to put it in. There's no reason why these phone-based OSes can't accept peripherals, multitask, and do everything better than a phone. It's just against the design philosophy.

But not all of this is software. There are certain hardware expectations that can't be met with the current batch of phone OSes. If you're looking at devices on a curve, you have your phone, then your tablet, then your laptop and your desktop. As the size of a increases, your expectation for power does too, and battery life decreases in accordance. So theoretically, in a tablet device, you'd want to have one significant step up in performance over phones, which we're not seeing in these devices. I'm not talking just running the same applications faster, with upscaled graphics, I'm talking entirely new things you can only do with increased processing power. Stuff like true multitasking, games that are actually noticeably better than cellphone games, light media editing (not as good as a laptop, of course) and media playback of all kinds, handling all sorts of codecs.

That's right, people expect more functionality and power with that bigger screen. Android's tablets run Android apps pretty fast, but not so fast that they're on an entirely new level. Widget-ized computing may prove to be practical, something people need as a second device. But for anybody in need of real heavy-duty computing, like Photoshop photo editing or Final Cut video processing, the design of a tablet simply won't do.
Shrinking PCs Down

Then, you have the people who have taken a windows-style desktop-metaphor interface and simplified it for a tablet. There's the HP slate, which runs Windows 7 but, knowing HP, will come with a friendly TouchSmart skin to hide Windows from sight while you're doing basic media and (hopefully) social stuff. There are various other Windows 7 tablets, including the Archos 9, basically just Windows 7 machines stripped of their keyboard. (Some have styluses.)

What makes no sense about the new crop of Windows-powered tablets is that they are based on a design concept that is already proven not to work. You'll recall back to the first time Microsoft tried these tablets, with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, around the turn of the century, and you'll remember that although the premise was neat, the execution had no unique functionality, no specific base of great apps, from Microsoft or anybody else. It was just a regular laptop with a stylus interface thrown in. What has changed? Now you can use your finger, instead:

There are benefits: Excellent peripheral support, the ability to install custom applications, true multitasking and cross-app interactivity, enhanced media performance, etc. In short, everything you expect from a low-powered Windows laptop, you can more or less expect here. But that extra boost of juice, that ongoing background chatter, demand more on the system. The downside is that battery is never remotely as good, and you have to deal with old-world Windows issues, like slower boot times, sleep issues, and, yes, viruses.

HP has worked hard to sell the concept of the touch PC with their TouchSmart platform. We have seen the desktop all-in-one TouchSmarts running multitouch Windows 7 but there wasn't a lot of software for them. Now, HP appears to be pinning its hopes to the slate, presumably giving a nice "tablet" interface on top of Windows 7 when you need it, but with the ability to pop back into desktop mode when you don't. That's fine, better even, but it's not a coherent computing experience.

Since it's ultimately a desktop OS, it's not designed for the type of input schemes you have on tablets. Besides, what happens when something running in the background crashes or demands attention? Nothing will shake you from your tablet reverie like an unexpected alert from the good people of Norton that your PC is in grave danger of being violated. Unless the tablet-friendly environment is more than skin deep, like the ones phone developers now use to hide Windows Mobile, the whole thing is a wash. By delaying on the Courier and promoting Windows 7 touch tablets, Microsoft's making the same kind of mistake that made WinCE devices (Windows Mobile) slow and clunky. They're offering up their standard base operating system and just telling people to add a skin on top, which is not the way to a tablet revolution.

Desktop Lite: The Browser-Only Approach

Frankly, we're not sure where to put JooJoo and the mysterious Chrome OS. Their philosophy? Why design a whole new OS when you can take the screen most people stare at most often—the web browser—and effectively limit your OS to that. Sure, web apps are only going to get better, richer. But this approach seems to take the limitations of both the phone and the desktop-metaphor OS, with almost none of the benefits of either.

Everything we've seen from the Chrome OS, both early on and more recently, suggests that it is typical white-on-black boring Google desktop style. We hope there's a trick or two up its sleeve, because if it's just a Chrome browser in a box, it might suffer.

We know more about the JooJoo. What's nice about it is that, presumably like the Chrome, its browser is a real WebKit PC browser, not a skimpy mobile one, so it supports Flash and Silverlight, and therefore Hulu, YouTube in HD, and other great video experiences. It does have a 1MP webcam, as well, but it's only for "video conferencing," if and when a browser-based video Skype comes along.
What We Need Is a Third Approach

The tablet operating system problem is one that no one has actually solved in the thirty-something years of personal computing, even though tablets have been in the public's imagination for at least that long.

The biggest players, Apple, Google and Microsoft have huge investments in both desktop and mobile software, and seem to attack this tablet problem from attacking with both Android and Chrome OS. They're all using their previous knowledge to get a head start. This is bad. Neither of these two solutions is optimal.

To watch the video, you'll first need to install the flash player.
'

Surprisingly enough, it's Microsoft—preoccupied as it is with mobile and desktop—that's perhaps closest to this golden mean of tablets.

If you watch the Courier video above, you'll notice that it's an entirely new class of interface. It doesn't have anything reminiscent of applications, which are the way phones do it, and it doesn't have the traditional windowing (lower-case) for programs, which is what desktops use. It's kinda just one big interface where everything talks to everything else, where you can do stuff in a natural way that makes sense.

Or take a look at this video. Again, it's neither phone nor desktop—it's designed with finger pointing in mind, optimized for this middle-ground in screen size. This is just a concept render, but it serves the point: We're looking for something completely new with an interface that "just works" for the device, giving you features from the desktop-side such as multitasking, serious computing and the ability to run any app without having to go through a locked-down application store funnel. But we also don't want to sacrifice the gestures, fingerability or light-weightness that you gain from smartphones.

It might never happen. It takes years and massive amounts of manpower to create a new operating system. Microsoft's taking forever just getting Windows Phone into the 21st century. While we have faith (somehow) that Microsoft will revamp its mobile franchise in its 7th iteration, it's unlikely that they would also then push out an entirely new operating system anytime in the next few years. More problematic is the recent insistence by Steve Ballmer at CES that Windows 7 tablets are the solution, when they very clearly are not.

If not Microsoft, then who? Apple and Google have already shown what they plan to do in the tablet space—and their operating systems may grow and develop in ways only hinted at now. The iPhone platform is not bad, and if they can break through the glass ceiling described above, it could be the answer. Google Chrome OS could also manifest itself in unexpected ways, even if we currently don't have too much optimism. Until that day arrives—or until the unlikely event that an upstart designs a seriously revolutionary OS and accompanying hardware platform to deliver it on—we'll have to make do with our big phones and keyboardless laptops.

still waiting to see how the courier turns out

[rezznor]

Andgar you will enjoy this interview


http://gizmodo.com/5465803/charlie-r...-for-ipad-chat

[andgar923]

Andgar you will enjoy this interview


http://gizmodo.com/5465803/charlie-r...-for-ipad-chat

Saw it already ( you forget I have no life).

I still think that it might ship with a camera (if not later this year), and multi tasking will be included. Imo the biggest drawback is multi tasking, but now that I found out you can run its native apps I have no problem. My biggest gripe was what I assumed that it was unable to run iTunes along with other apps. But now that I know you can run iWork, Safari, and iTunes at the same time I don't see any issue.

It might be an inconvenience for some, but for most it won't.

Flash was always a non-issue and they talked about it in that vid. I also read an article that mentioned some legit technological possibilities as to why it doesn't support it.

Which are:

*Battery life
*Performance

More importantly and overlooked is, Flash's inability to be a flexible tool for the iPhone/iPad/iPod environment. Its not versatile enough, its not configurable enough to work with those devices. What you have there is what you get. You can't view it in landscape or portrait mode, you can't pinch and zoom, you can't manipulate it in any way. So the devices become limited in what they do. The iPad can be viewed from any angle and any side, you wouldn't be able to do that with flash installed.

And like many have noted..... why would people wanna play flash based games when they have app store's games at their disposal?

Like they mentioned, some sites have adjusted their content and sites to accommodate the iPhone/iPod, so the same will be true of the iPad.

I don't think its as limited as people make it out to be. I have a flash blocker on my laptop and I rarely need flash outside YouTube and DailyMotion *not including my pron* but all of those are viewable in iPods/iPhones.

And I believe most pron sites are iPod/iPhone compatible as well.

[rezznor]

Well, well, well. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal today, Apple management is going to remain "nimble" in iPad pricing if sales start off slow. Hey, wait a minute—are you thinking what I'm thinking?

The scoop originates from a Credit Suisse analyst, who apparently met with Apple executives recently to discuss all things tablet. In addition to the execs pitching how the iPad wouldn't cannibalize Apple's other product lines, they outright stated that they'll adjust pricing if they have to:

"While it remains to be seen how much traction the iPad gets initially, management noted that it will remain nimble (pricing could change if the company is not attracting as many customers as anticipated)."
This actually isn't all that surprising, if you think back to the iPhone's launch in 2007 and the dramatic $200 price cut that followed just a few months later. That caused sales to surge 200% and garnered no small amount of publicity for the new device.

Bottom line: I don't exactly have $500 to $830 burning a hole in my pocket to spend on a first-gen device. So spread the word! And for goodness sake, stay strong and don't buy an iPad. Yet. [WSJ]

while an immediate price cut will certainly boost sells and early adoption of the iPad, has any major company ever started talking about a price cut for a major new product BEFORE it has even been released before? I'm thinking the initial negative backlash to the iPad has apple a bit spooked. They really do need to have a spectacular and hyped launch if they want to reproduce the iPhone's success. even though the iPhone had a major price cut just a few months after release, they never even hinted that one was coming until they did it. why would they? it would just keep potential buyers waiting until the did slash prices.

[andgar923]

while an immediate price cut will certainly boost sells and early adoption of the iPad, has any major company ever started talking about a price cut for a major new product BEFORE it has even been released before? I'm thinking the initial negative backlash to the iPad has apple a bit spooked. They really do need to have a spectacular and hyped launch if they want to reproduce the iPhone's success. even though the iPhone had a major price cut just a few months after release, they never even hinted that one was coming until they did it. why would they? it would just keep potential buyers waiting until the did slash prices.

They're trying to create a market that never existed, so its a big gamble on their behalf. They know and have known that it was shaky to release this product and that convincing many would why they'd want one, was their main challenge.

[rezznor]

They're trying to create a market that never existed, so its a big gamble on their behalf. They know and have known that it was shaky to release this product and that convincing many would why they'd want one, was their main challenge.

i think the key to the success of this launch is going to be the early adopters. If people like us fail to embrace this product and build buzz on it I think the iPad is going to whither on the vine. That being said, I had no plans on purchasing the first generation, but if the price does drop a few hundred bucks then I will probably pick it up for shits and giggles.

[andgar923]

[QUOTE]iPad: Apple Upsets The eBook Apple-cart...


iPad: Will truly upset the Apple-cart...

It's been a while since I posted a blog here. I've been pretty busy with other projects - but that wasn't the reason. At least two blogs I had in draft form for months were based on the rumors filling the Internet and the business press that Apple was about to launch a Tablet device. Like everyone else, I had lots of information that could end up being either true or false - like the story that Apple had taken delivery of a quantity of 9.7-inch displays, which ended up being true. I decided against publishing, because I felt another dose of speculation added nothing.

Here are a few of my pre-launch speculations, though - copied and pasted from draft blogs:
"Apple could easily create a really elegant Tablet which looked just like a larger iPhone. With the iPhone, it already has a keyboardless UI which millions of users have found easy and convenient to use."
"With a Tablet device, Apple could enter both the NetBook and eBook markets at the same time."
"Apple has shown with each of its devices - PC, phone and music player - that there are millions of people who'd happily pay a premium price for a great user experience."
"If Apple can get reasonable battery life from an iPhone-like Tablet, it's going to make the Amazon Kindle screen unacceptable."
Well, as the whole world now knows, Apple did indeed launch a Tablet. It does look like a giant iPhone - even runs the iPhone operating system. It's set its sights on the growing eBook market. And it has succeeded in getting a reported 10-hour battery life from a color screen which also supports video.

Apple's PR department must still have sore hands since the launch, from high-fiving each other. When was the last time the launch of a new computer made the front page of all the major newspapers - with a huge color photograph? (Answer: Never!)

I predict it will be a huge success. It will cause the same kind of mayhem among TabletPC and eBook manufacturers that the iPod and iPhone did in their respective market categories.

It's a great-looking device. It's sleek and elegant - exactly what you'd expect from Apple. But that isn't why it will dominate the Tablet category. It's because Apple understands that computers have made a transition from "computing devices" to "consumer devices". Apple has built its huge success in recent years by becoming a company which creates great end-to-end consumer experiences.

The arrival of the iPad is bad news for the Kindle. Even though I've owned Kindles since the first one shipped, I've always described it as a "transitional device". It was simply the first device with a screen good enough to enable reading text for long periods, with long battery life - and an acceptable book-buying experience built in.

The trouble with the Kindle is that for all its vaunted modernity, it's really a backward-looking device. So is the eInk technology at its heart. Both are aimed at creating an experience close to paper. But that's not the Future of Reading. The future will be created by first equalling, then going beyond, paper. It is books with full color, books with video, books which update through the Web. Kindle was good enough to jump-start the digital book market. But it's not good enough to keep it. eInk was acceptable only until the appearance of a color screen with acceptable battery life. And the iPad's 10 hours is more than enough to knock it off its pedestal...

iPad is also bad news for Microsoft, which has been pushing TabletPCs for years. It pioneered the genre, and my good friend Bert Keely has been at the heart of its efforts.

The trouble is trying to innovate at Microsoft, which is a company of geeks, run by geeks, and dominated by Windows.

When TabletPC began at Microsoft, it was a research effort - outside of the regular Windows organization. Once it was re-organized into Windows, that was the kiss of death. I never really thought much about this while I worked there, but it's my belief that despite all the lip-service paid to end-users, the only Windows customers with any real power are the Windows Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).

They're the customers Windows really has to care about - because most people get their OS upgrades when they change machines. And the Windows OEMs never seemed to get what TabletPCs should really be about. Most of them shipped machines which were basically conventional laptop PCs with Tablet functionality implemented like an add-on. They all had keyboards, and converted to tablets by swiveling a standard screen.

There were some true keyboard-free tablets in the early days - NEC shipped two models (version 2 shipped in Japan only, though!) They died the death by being ahead of their time, and suffered from poor battery life. So we ended up with TabletPCs like Toshiba's M7, for instance, which were neither one thing nor the other, and wound up being terrible at both. I ran one for more than a year - using it as a conventional laptop because as a Tablet it was just too big, too heavy, too awkward and ran far too hot to be used more than occasionally. Even as a laptop, it suffered from the unreliability all-too-likely in any device whose hardware and software are designed by different companies.

My M7 was replaced by a MacBook Pro, which turned out to be the best Windows laptop I ever had (until I left Microsoft and bought a 133ppi MacBookPro to replace it...) As a result of that experience, my wife Tanya replaced her Windows laptop with an iMac desktop with a large screen and an internal 1Terabyte hard drive. It's wonderful.

CONTINUED BELOW......

[andgar923]

........

I run Mac OSX when I'm doing page layout or working on high-resolution scans using Adobe InDesign, PhotoShop and Lightroom. But I spend most of my time in Windows. So I run Vista using BootCamp. This MacBookPro is the most trouble-free Windows machine I've ever had. I could never get a Windows laptop to Sleep and Wake instantly. Even if it would sleep when brand-new, inevitably the Sleep capability would fail within a few weeks, and I'd be forced to use Hibernate instead. My MacBook Pro still Sleeps and Wakes reliably, months later.

Vista is a great OS - provided you are running it on a fast and powerful machine. I know it's the fashion to dump on it - even inside Microsoft. Hey, it's the old story - blame all of your mistakes on the guy who just left. There's no question that it took waaay too long to build, and that when it first shipped it lacked so many drivers that most people had problems getting their existing equipment to run. I knew plenty of people who had problems running it on Macs using BootCamp back then. But once Apple had released all the drivers the problems went away. I like Vista, and so far I've seen no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 7.

After a few months, I still find text on MacOSX too blurry for my taste, even on this 133ppi display. ClearType was one of the things we did get right at Microsoft - even if it took ten years to get it into the hands of most customers.

I'm not revealing any confidential information here. Anyone who saw Bill Gates' keynote speech at Comdex in 1998 saw me on stage demonstrating ClearType. And they heard Bill say - in pretty emphatic terms - that it would ship in Windows.

Well, it shipped in Windows XP, right enough. But the Windows team buried it so deeply that most users never even found out it was there, or how to turn it on. It wasn't until Vista that it was turned on by default for all users. And that shipped in 2008. Ten years after we first showed it before we truly got it into the hands of our customers!

Apple implemented its own version. However, they turned it on for everyone the instant they shipped it. It's a pity they took a more simplistic approach, and that's the only question-mark I still have against the iPad.

At Microsoft, we invented ClearType specifically to solve the problems of creating highly-readable text at normal reading sizes (between 9 and 13 point). There's a lot more technology going on than simply utilizing the RGB sub-pixels on LCD displays. Apple's clone creates text whose characters look more like the original print fonts at those sizes than ClearType does - but the price they pay is a lack of sharpness and clarity, and text that's slightly blurred at the edges. That means I still prefer to do all my reading on Windows, with "genuine" ClearType - even on this great 133ppi display.

My only misgiving about the iPad is that its screen is 122ppi. If Apple implements its current ClearType clone on it, we might end up with text that's slightly blurry, and could cause problems reading for sustained periods. That's only speculation, though. I can't say for sure until I've held one in my hands and tried to read on it for several hours.

When the merits of different operating systems are discussed, people - especially at Microsoft - have always trotted out a standard argument: "It's much easier for Apple, they have control over both the hardware and the operating system, they don't have the same number of different processors/screens/mice/devices to support".

That argument was logical enough when comparing Macintoshes running MacOS with Windows PCs. But my BootCamp experiences led me to ask the question - publicly, in this blog: "How can Apple make a better Windows machine than any Windows PC maker?" (That turned out not to be such a good career move for me at Microsoft. Take my tip - never tell the Emperor he's butt-naked, unless you're sure he's big enough to see it as an opportunity to buy new clothes).

If you install Vista on a Mac using BootCamp, and run the Windows Experience Index diagnostics which rate its capabilities, you end up with better scores than the vast majority of Windows machines. This machine rates a WEI of 5.3 - and I've never seen a score higher than that.

Apple's had its failures in the handheld device area before, of course - anyone say Newton? But in my opinion they're a long way past that, and haven't put a foot wrong in years.

Newton's "Achilles' Heel" was that reliable Handwriting Recognition was critical to its functionality, and we all know what a Doonesbury Disaster that turned out to be! iPhone was built without that dependency, and thus dodges the "Doonesbury Bullet".

Even in these tough economic times, Apple has proved there are plenty of people who'll pay a premium for a great device. It has been creating winners for years now. There were plenty of cheaper MP3 music players available long before Apple's iPod appeared. Yet the iPod owns the market - even though it was both later to market, and more expensive. Checking out eBay recently, there were only 3 used iPods for sale (and over 1000 Zunes...)


iPod, therefore I am...

There are plenty of mobile phones around. But Apple's much more expensive iPhones (both the phone and the service) have been flying off the shelves. I've had a Windows Mobile phone for years. But compared to the iPhone it's a complex, fussy, unfriendly brick. I had been meaning to get rid of it for a long time, but I don't use a mobile phone that much, and I still read books on it using Microsoft Reader, so I've been hesitant about making the switch.

However, last week I dropped my Windows Mobile phone in the water. It was DOA when brought back to the surface. So now I need a new phone. No way am I buying a Windows Mobile replacement. I really grew to hate that phone. I've checked out the new Google phones, and I don't like them much either. No, I want a great customer experience - so I'll go with Apple.


iPhone: Now I have an excuse to buy one...

I'm not an Apple Fanboy. But you have to give credit where it's due. From being browbeaten into a mere 2-3% PC market share several years ago, Apple has parlayed its expertise in "consumer computing" into astounding success. I expect the iPad to continue that success.[/QUOTE]

http://billhillsblog.blogspot.com/20...pple-cart.html

[YAWN]

so i just got an email from one of my business partners and i think we're getting 2 of these for our conference season this fall

[IcanzIIravor]

so i just got an email from one of my business partners and i think we're getting 2 of these for our conference season this fall

Let us know how it is when you get to play with it.