Quote:
The original quote was that there are multiple other companies producing devices which have both more technology and features/functionality and are cheaper than the iPod/iPhone and iPad.


To me, features divided by price equals value. "Features" includes things like "runs a real operating system." Netbooks run a real operating system. Not my favorite OS, but a legitimate OS that consumers enjoy using. For many consumers, that feature alone can outweigh out a lot of iPad's innovations. Same goes for the physical keyboard that netbooks and many tablets have.

You really seem to be setting the parameters of the debate to your liking here by refusing to acknowledge that a real multitasking operating system is, in fact, a "feature" that other netbooks and tablets have that certainly supports the position of the person you quoted. People out there like their Windows and they like their Office suite and they (guh) like their Flash. They like physical keyboards. They like multitasking. Do you think these things don't matter at all?

I've responded by pointing out where Apple is *not* providing value with this device, and where other notebook and netbook makers are. Does any one device from any one company match up with the iPad spec-for-spec? Of course not, if they did then they'd have already invented the iPad. The point is, the original quote is correct -- there are devices that have more to offer to most consumers and are cheaper.

Quote:
You could take the iPad hardware, put a new logo on it (let's say HP) and load it up with Windows and sell it at the same price. Is it more functional than what was demonstrated yesterday? Fuck no.


Actually, you could sell it for more, because it would have a legitimate operating system on it that can run real applications, and multitask them. I hates me some Windows, but in a choice between an iPad and your theoretical WinPad, I'm taking the WinPad, and I'm sure I'd have plenty of company.
_________________________
- Tony C
my empeg stuff