The best Present and Future alternatives to the iPad | Hacker News Reader

The best Present and Future alternatives to the iPad

engadget.com

24 pointssuprgeek56 comments

Back in 2004 I got my first Tablet PC, compaq t1000. Later I ditched it and got myself a Sony VGN-UX90PS. My experience after 6 years of tablets: they suck. The interface is terrible to use starting from XP-Tablet Edition, to Windows 7. It is just like a laptop, but too small, to complicated. The iPad will not have the same fault. But I believe, for Apples success the interface will matter much less than the kick-ass content 3rd party developers provide. If I could have all Iphone/Ipad programs on my windows tablet, I would not switch.

Let me sum them up for you: there isn't any.

Just like the iPhone when it appeared, there really is no rival to the experience iPad offers, to its hardware+software+touch combo.

The closest it MAY come, could be Android, someday. Again, just like with the iPhone.

Who cares about the "experience" if it doesn't run vim and has no sd card slot?

Those people who don’t use vim and don’t need a SD card slot? I.e. most people?

Hell, I'd dare to say most hackers don't use VIM or need a SD slot on their tablet.

I don't think hackers will use a tablet to do some serious work. For that we have already our computers. I use Vim, but it's the last thing I could think about speaking of a tablet.

The iPad (and all his wanabe rivals) have a different target than hackers.

VIM: Fuck your experience, use me.

Yes you can access an sd card (search the apple.com for iPad Camera Connection Kit) and no you don't need to run vim on the iPad.

Who would buy an ugly connection kit that sticks out of the device for an overpriced tablet? Okay, I forgot about the normal Apple user.

and most of all it's a status symbol.

Which is exactly what you want if you're going for the high-margin high-end of the market.

Chrome OS is intended to run on hardware not entirely dissimilar to the iPad (get rid of the keyboard, put in a touch screen), with similar types of on-line connectivity.

Chrome OS will be to the iPad what Android is to the iPod.

Why not Android on a tablet? (Or, to put it another way, why does Chrome OS exist?)

Because with small screens and underpowered chips web technologies can't cut it right now for many tasks, hence Android. This will become less and less true over time, and bigger screens, faster chips, new tech like WebGL and Apple convincing the public that a tablet doesn't need to be the same as their old computer all help it happen faster and make Chrome OS more compelling long term.

Can Chrome OS run games, or music-making applications (synthesizers, drum machines), or really anything that isn't in a web page?

That's a good question, and I get where you are coming from with it. The iPad/phone/touch devices let you run local apps that can take more efficient advantage of the hardware the software is running on. But from what I can tell, the vast majority of apps are simply portals to data on the internet anyway -- in some cases just exact reproductions of the mobile version of some site (Wolfram Alpha anybody). And as Google has demonstrated, pretty advanced apps can be built on the web, that work great on the phone (and has the nice side benefit of circumventing Apple's ridiculous approval process).

I think that if you look strategically where Google is heading (faster Javascript, native apps - which I think now supports ARM, embedded flash, etc.), running stuff embedded in a web page shouldn't really be any less efficient than running a local app.

The good short-term rebuttal is that Apple can do it now, with local apps.

Longer term, if the development ecosystem for web-based apps gets sophisticated enough, it won't really matter if you own an iPhone, iPad, Chrome OS device, Android phone, whatever...because the app will be pulled off of a website completely circumventing Apple's walled garden.

Your two examples, games and music-making apps, are already widely available over the web right-now. So yes, a Chrome OS box can run those things.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/open_source/sho... http://armorgames.com/ http://aviary.com/tools/Myna#googtrans/auto/en http://blog.soundseller.eu/2009/11/online-audio-editor-aviar... http://vimeo.com/8525101 http://blog.soundseller.eu/2010/03/spectrum-visualization-wi...

The iPhone was huge because it was such a huge leap and unexpected departure from previous phones. It created awe and generated desire from the moment it was unveiled. It was obvious to those who get tech that the iPhone would be huge.

People who underestimated the iPhone are now overcompensating by being bullish on the iPad because they fail to understand that these are not the same thing. The unveiling of the iPad did not engender any of the feelings of awe that iPhone's did. Apple unveiled the worst tablet device they possibly could have. It was completely predictable. Every usage we've seen of the iPad has involved someone contorting his body to accommodate the device.

The iPhone offered a users things they didn't think were possible with a phone, and these were things they clearly wanted. The iPad offers users nothing they can't do using a laptop. It is an attempt at forcing a style of usage onto users that is clearly undesirable.

People will try to hype this thing and pretend they like it for as long as possible, but one can only sustain a lie for so long. This will be the end of the aura that Apple has been building for the past decade. It is clear as night and day.

I don't know if it will be a hit or not, but I started becoming uncomfortable when the biggest touted "feature" in the keynote appeared to be the number of people's credit cards that Apple had on file. That didn't sound like a typical Steve "bicycle for the mind" Jobs thing to repeatedly dwell on. Certainly doesn't excite me as a gadget consumer.

I watched the keynote and can't say that I heard it repeatedly dwelled upon. Where was it mentioned?

Screenshot of slide:

http://obamapacman.com/2010/01/official-steve-jobs-apple-ipa...

They mentioned it in one slide, did they mention it anywhere else? That was my point.

It was obvious to those who get tech that the iPhone would be huge.

There were a lot of people who claim to "get tech" who were not bullish on the iPhone.

People who underestimated the iPhone are now overcompensating by being bullish on the iPad because they fail to understand that these are not the same thing.

I knew from the first moment the iPhone was a potential game changer, yet I'm also bullish on the iPad. (In fact, I just got back from the store and I'm about to attempt my first sync in about 30 seconds.)

The iPad is the best example to date of a relatively new category: mobile ultra-light touch tablet. As it is now, it cannot replace a laptop. However, if you extrapolate what Apple did with the iPhone in 3 releases to what they will do with iPad, then it becomes obvious that they will be able to replace and better the use case for most netbooks by then.

People who now underestimate the iPad don't get it: It's the Ecosystem! That's the key point that makes the iPhone the best deal, and where Android is playing catchup. (And it appears to be doing a good job at it.) Right now the iPad can leverage the same ecosystem. That's a powerful combination that a lot of techies don't get.

"It created awe and generated desire from the moment it was unveiled."

interestingy enough, I heard a lot of people saying the exact opposite: that the iphone was a flop, and on, and on. Actually, a lot of 'gurus' still say that kind of stuff today (specially a lot of high profile Nokia fanboys/evangelists)

No, that's my whole point. People who didn't get the iPhone don't understand technology, even though they may claim to. You have to look at their records to judge whether they actually get it or not. If it wasn't obvious to you that the iPhone would be great, then your opinion on the iPad or other technology really has no value.

Anyone who compares the iPad with a netbook, arguing the netbook has a faster CPU, better price or whatever, simply does not get it.

True, what good is a device you can type and work on if you can have one that can't?

"You just don't get it" is the new "magical", isn't it.

Let me put it this way: How do you think Apple has become as big and successful as it is today, despite always releasing products that are technically inferior (ie. Mhz/megapixel/megawhatever) and often more expensive than the competition? Could there me more to a product than the hardware specs?

How many people pre-ordered one of these without ever touching or seeing one?

Oh right, lots. That's how Apple became big again. People buying stuff sight unseen.

I don't think most of the millions of iPhones and iPods that have been sold were purchased by people who buy Apple products on blind faith.

And how many of those people have an iPhone and were able to do the extrapolation: "This multitouch is great with the Apps and the App store. What if we could have a bigger screen with that?"

I was posting that idea well before the iPad was anything more than a rumor.

You are right, the presence of good product in the marketplace tends to feed on itself.

However, I think a good argument could be made that the first generation or so of iPods were sold sight unseen to a public with a fairly large number of mp3 players in the same marketplace. Few people remember that the original iPod was supposed to be a driver of consumers to the Macintosh platform. For a pretty long time you couldn't use one on any other platform other than a Macintosh.

iPhones sold well because the competition in the marketplace wasn't really all that great. Palm hadn't really done anything interesting in the years prior and Windows mobile has always been a joke. But remember the long lines of people trying to buy up a dozen or so iPhones at the original price sight unseen? I remember one lady standing outside a store with a stack of cash trying to buy phones off of people who got one for 2x the original purchase price.

And exactly like those two items, the iPad has people lined up getting as many as possible because their iPhones are so awesome. Even though the logic of blowing up a phone app onto a tablet makes little sense, and the iPad actually demonstrates a reduction in capability over the iPhone (no camera, seriously?).

I'd wager that it'll be just enough that people will slurp up the next version that'll have a camera and USB even though they already own the original.

The problem that people have is not that the iPad is a good product or not, it's that people are buying it without having any idea what it's like beyond "it's a bigger iPhone". If some other vendor had come out with exactly the same product, they wouldn't have flocked to it, because it's sight unseen. But stick an Apple logo on it, and have Jobs sit in a chair fiddling with it for 5 minutes, and it's sold out before it even hits the stores.

Well, from what I can tell, this is as slick or slicker than every other tablet, and no one else can match the App Store iTunes ecosystem.

As I said before, extra screen real estate has a nonlinear effect on UIs. It's far more than a bigger iPhone already, and this is just a start.

I wholeheartedly agree that the execution of the iPad is superior to other tablets.

I'm just not sure it's been demonstrated yet that tablet computing is a "good idea" (TM).

The success of the Kindle gets you 1/4th of the way there. I think Apple has a chance for a game changer with this.

honest question, do you think that Apple wouldn't have built the iPad if not for the Kindle?

No. I think the iPhone multitouch (truly intuitive interface advance) plus the App Store (walled garden combining a significant degree of safety and convenience with usefully harnessed market forces) pointed the way to this. By mentioning the Kindle, I was replying to your comment.

For every iPod and iPhone they have an AppleTV or Mighty Mouse where the magic just doesn't take and everyone buys something else instead.

And the Sansas etc. had caught up with the iPod by the time they brought out the iPhone, Android has caught up with iPhone in time for the iPad. They better hope it's a big hit because Android, Chrome OS and Meego tablets are all coming soon in time to be evaluated carefully by the kind of people who don't buy first revision Apple products.

"Caught up with" being the key point here. You don't always get to 70% market share by playing catch-up.

70% market share was the iPod.

The iPhone is not the iPod, and the iPad is not the iPhone. So you may not get 70% by playing catch-up, but you don't always get it by doing whatever Apple does, even in the case of their big successes like the iPhone.

Exactly, which is why it would be nice to see companies that try to not just copy the iPhone (and now the iPad), like most cell phone companies have tried to do the past couple of years. Likewise, it took the OLPC project and then Asus EEE to ignite the netbook market, and the Wii to show that gaming consoles could be fun for everyone. Most companies however avoid risks and only copy and incrementally improve on the status quo.

It's said by people who did not immediately understand that the iPhone would be such a huge success even though it was obvious to people who understood technology. These people now think that the iPad is the same thing even though people who actually get technology realize that it absolutely isn't. People commenting need to reflect carefully on their own ability to judge new tech.

A lot of people who understood technology thought that the iPhone would flop. It was too expensive, wasn't a business oriented smartphone, and Apple was a newcomer in the cell phone industry so how could anyone think that they would displace the big players?

The iPhone turned out to be a game changer. A lot of people that get technology think that it might be the only computing device that most people will need.

If that's true for the iPhone, it's much truer for the iPad. (Posted from one)

No matter how good the iPad may be or is, it doesn't replace my laptop! Good try though.

I think that's the point. Apple wants you to buy a Macbook and an iPad.

The advantage of the iPad that most of these alternatives lack is that it's light enough to hold in one hand while reading or viewing content.

I think the MacBook Pro 15" is pretty light already, I'm already content with it. If I were to get an iPad, it would be like a downgrade, at least that's how I would feel about it.

However a MacBook Pro with an iPad is a very sweet and flexible combination.

Look at what happened to the iPhone in 2 or 3 releases. For heaven's sake, Apple was able to establish a game changing ecosystem my then. Extrapolate that for the iPad. There's a good chance that the 3rd generation iPad will be able to subsume 90% of laptop use for almost 90% of the population.

If you want to evaluate the challenge and potential windfall facing Apple with the iPad, then don't compare it to the iPhone. Compare that to the establishment of the App Store.

I would never be able to replace my laptop with an iPad, simply because I'm a software developer. But I'd certainly buy it as a portable mail, web browsing, movie and ebook device, which just happens to fill all of my parents computing needs.

So while it's not going to be my main device, I certainly see it as being a competitor to the traditional laptop for a MOST people.

Most of all, I think Apple has managed to get the "magic" right once again. I never told my parents that they should buy iPhones, but they did after trying mine, and they are very happy (I'd never thought that my mother would start browsing the web and sending emails, but it's happened thanks to the iPhone).

Right, it's not meant to replace a laptop. I currently own both an iPod Touch and a Sony eBook reader. An iPad could easily replace both of them and its price is actually pretty much just the sum of the prices of the two.

Yet, I'm standing here outside the Boston apple store waiting in line, MacBook pro in my bag, checking my news on my iPhone. Honestly, the real reason I'm getting an iPad today is because I thought I would enjoy playing with it, not because it would replace any of my netbooks/laptops/smart phones.

The current iPad is just a start. Just like the original iPod was a start and the original iPhone was a start. Apple is already hard at work rolling a bigger snowball with the iPad foundation.

The iPad and other tablets will always be made a specification lower than a laptop. Why? So consumers spend more $$ buying the full range of products on the line.

I want something that can replace my phone and laptop, I think this could probably be accomplished by a tablet you could fit in either a shoulder sling or a large pocket, coupled with a bluetooth headset.

Of course you wouldn't want to be talking into the thing, but as a platform for handling calls I can't see why a tablet shouldn't be able to act as the brain for a bt headset.

This way I could just have the tablet + a powerful desktop at home for "real work".

That seems like exactly the kind of thing that Apple wouldn't do because it's too geeky and niche and distracts from the product vision even though the hardware and software are probably all there already.

Then again, I'm kind of shocked that you can get a physical keyboard for the iPad, so we shouldn't rule anything out. I'd expect this feature first from someone else though.

Which is why I'm interested in alternatives to the iPad, because yeah, I agree with you, this is something Apple would not do.

Even if they would, I don't buy apple ever anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com