Forget the "aim" part for a second. Do look at what the simple announcement has done. Why are these people interested in this device at all? The bottom line is what's significant here. People are going to want this device. People are gong to buy this device.

The very same arguments were made against the iPhone by a lot of pundits, yet it's done well because people find it truly game changing. It has a lust factor that simply no other handset has. If they don't know any better and you show someone a Pre or an Android handset, they'll ask, "oh, is that an iPhone?"

You are significantly downplaying the importance of Apple's brand and reach. You're significantly downplaying the vast library of existing applications (yes, there are a load of apps geared toward contractors) and you're ignoring the eagerness with which current developers are embracing the iPad. Even if you take away all existing software that will run natively on the device, within a few short weeks of its release, it will already have more software written specifically targeting it than currently exists for Android and WebOS - combined.

I believe the examples from that blog I linked were extreme situations. You can't see how the significance of that extremity helps paint a picture of where this product is already reaching?


I suspect by the time we see a viable ChromeOS tablet, Flash will be next to irrelevant on the web. It seems to be the main point detractors have to hang on to, as useless and insignificant as it already is. Cool, Empire Strikes Back AT-AT done in CSS3

With regards to the iPad in other pursuits, Apple has already been able to complete upset Amazon's eBook business. On multiple fronts and multiple times. Yet they still don't have their product out the door. This shows that Amazon recognizes the significance of the product and so too do publishers. Now, I don't give these people much credit, so more than likely they simply recognize that Apple is a force to be reckoned with on this playing field rather than having an above-average ability to actually rationalize what makes the product so special.

Oh, I missed Bitt's edit of a previous message about the NYT being "allowed' to post someone else's story. They're allowed to do whatever they want. Should they publish such a crap piece? Does it further devalue their publication? Are people who think better of their publication going to be surprised when they read such tripe? Those are the points.

The article was fantasy on all grounds, not at all containing anything backed in enough research to be honestly considered real criticism. And that's a problem. People who aren't as up on technology won't see the problems. They'll take it at face value.

My position and your position have already been summarized some posts back in those two one-liners. This article doesn't change nor affect my position, but it's insightful regarding the state of the web and the state of some media outlets. Pulling stuff out of thin air for one and publishing fantasy as fact, perhaps without having even fully read the contents. Of course the point we've been discussing today, the arguable relevance of Flash - on the web and on a product that accesses the web. I'd expect this type of garbage from CNN, not NYT. And of course commenters on Gizmodo who are all about the Flash.

Less than 3 hours to go for the new season of Lost. I can blame that on any incoherence of the last few posts.