Why I don't care very much about tablets anymore | Hacker News Reader

Why I don't care very much about tablets anymore

arstechnica.com

185 pointszdw141 comments

> Don't get me wrong: I'll always have a tablet in my life...

And how is this not a game changer? Would the author have said the before the iPad?

The iPad has replaced a laptop or desktop for all casual browsing (I typed this comment on mine) and a lot of media consumption. It's great for technical books. And I play games on it.

It is easily the most cost effective tech purchase I have ever made in terms of how much I use it. Buying the new version--pretty much whatever it is--is almost a no-brainer.

Apple has sold 16M since launch with 40M+ expected this year. For a new product segment.

Sounds like a game changer to me.

What I am over is all the hype over Android tablets. Basically I'll believe it when I see it.

> The iPad has replaced a laptop or desktop for all casual browsing (I typed this comment on mine) and a lot of media consumption. It's great for technical books. And I play games on it.

I live in a large city in the UK, and throughout the past year I've only seen two iPad's. I wouldn't even remotely say that the iPad has "replaced the laptop" in any way, shape or form. When the iPhone was released it was near impossible to not see it outside, whereas the average iPad user will keep theirs at home.

Even if the figures are good I really cannot see the casual user deciding to ditch their laptop for the iPad, and I'd go as far as to say that the iPad has been a huge disappointment.

Which city? I've seen a whole bunch of people in London standing on street corners using their iPads.

Granted they do look pretty silly...

But I would certainly not say that the iPad has been a 'huge disappointment'; not for Apple, and not for the consumer. Or did you mean for you personally?

Less silly than someone standing on a corner using a laptop though.

That's no small feat for new tech. Imagine a world in which people riding segways looked less silly than cyclists.

Bristol, although I do travel to Birmingham and Manchester quite a bit. I've not seen a single iPad in any of those places (except at the Apple Stores).

I think the iPad was always going to struggle because when compared to the iPhone it is less likely for someone to be seen using a tablet than a mobile phone.

As I said, the figures may be impressive, but I'd lump this in with Apple TV as being a good idea that will struggle to find a long-term market outside of the typical Apple users.

No point debating if the iPad is a hit or not. Just see their annual report and you'd know that its a big hit. It doesn't matter if you see them on the streets or not. AAPL sells them and its makes them money which means that it is a hit.

In an unrelated note, why do some people refer to companies by their stock name? I mean, you're only saving one letter, and you have to keep shift pressed down all the time. Plus, fewer people will understand what you mean. What's the appeal?

Actually there is a minor point that I am trying to make here by using the stock name. As techies we often forget the end goals of a business, by using the stock names I try to remind myself and hopefully others that no matter how cool is sounds from a purely technical point of view, if its not a good business, it will not survive long.

I see, thanks for the clarification.

In my experience, seeing something brandished ostentatiously on certain street corners in london, but nowhere else (which is my experience,) is evidence in favor of it being a fad of little relevance.

I live in a large city in Asia, and I've seen a ton of ipads (and some knockoff chinese tablets).

I think the grandparent was talking about home use.

Most of the time, anyone you see with a laptop in public is writing, coding, or some other type of "work" -- text-entry heavy activities that a device with a real keyboard will always be better for.

When I'm out, my phone is good enough for casual browsing, reading a few pages of my Kindle book while I'm waiting for something, or watching a YouTube video someone linked from Twitter. At home, picking up the tablet for a few minutes is much less hassle than going to my desk or opening up my laptop. Instead of buying a laptop for casual leisure computing, I imagine a lot of people opting for a tablet, with a cheap desktop relegated to the study for paying bills and catching up on work.

I just got back from the year's largest conference of orthopedic surgeons, and the number of iPads was mind-numbing. And they were all for casual use.

I live in Vancouver, BC and I've seen tons of people using them. If you hit a few Starbucks in a day (as I tend to do) chances are that you'll see at least one or two people using them there. Saw one girl yesterday that seemed to be reading a book; another one today was writing something.

They're not ubiquitous, but I get the sense that a lot of people buy them and use them at home instead of dragging them around town. I've bought one for my mother, and I know several other people who have as well. My landlord bought one for her boyfriend, other friends have them for using around the house.

They're selling very well, but unlike iPhones, it's rare that their owners take them everywhere, so seeing them on the street just isn't a good measure of their popularity.

(Also, they're ridiculously expensive in the UK compared to the US or Canada.)

I go to Starbucks at least twice a week, and I've yet to see one there. The only places I've seen them is at a graduation party and a few days ago at Wagamama (asian restaurant). In contrast I see a Kindle nearly every single day on the bus or in Starbucks.

I can imagine them selling quite well now, but I can't help but feel that people are buying them because they're a shiny, new Apple product, rather than because they're the future. I'd love for the iPad to do well because it would push innovation in an area of computing that greatly interests me, but I cannot help but feel that the current experience the iPad offers will only corner it into being a novelty product that won't last. I'm also willing to accept that the reason they don't seem as popular in the UK is because they're far too expensive.

Until the iPad can offer a day-to-day experience that offers something a laptop cannot I really cannot see it keeping its success going for more than three or four years.

The day-to-day experience gain of a tablet should be that it's way more available. I'm not convinced the iPad form factor fully achieves that, but it's at least a great proof of concept.

It's pretty much moot to ask a tablet to do something functional that a laptop can't. Anything a tablet can do today, a laptop can either already do or can do tomorrow.

Similarly, there's nothing a laptop can do that a desktop can't. I used to have a desktop that had carry handles and a keyboard that clipped to the base unit. But somehow, that concept no longer appeals. Not that I've ditched desktops, but I figure luggability wasn't as good as designed-in portability.

I live in Los Angeles, and I've seen several people using iPads on public transit or in cafes.

I live in a forsaken backwater, and I've seen several people using iPads in cafes.

I think for certain use cases it will still be a game changer. It fills the role of a 'more mobile' laptop. The form is not offensive. If someone handed you a tablet to:

Fill out a form in a waiting room.

Select your order at a restaurant.

Go over your vitals in a hospital.

Track incoming/outgoing inventory in a warehouse or somewhere else in the field where a desk may not be at hand.

Businesses can see how this leads to improvements in productivity by reducing the data entry step that would usually be done by another person copying what was already entered. The functional potential goes beyond consumer web browsing and game playing.

For the vast majority of those uses I would say that an iPad is overkill, although in a warehouse where a friend of mind works they use Android phones for inventory tracking.

Don't get me wrong, I think that given time tablet computers will be the future. My problem is that the iPad doesn't offer even half of the experience I was expecting; the hardware is "okay" but at the moment it feels like a large iPhone and the apps available on the market don't utilise the unique experience that tablet computing should be for it to establish itself.

As in the past, I cannot help but feel that the iPad will eventually lose out, as many others have.

The author is not a general representation of people for whom tablet is appealing. Whenever there is large amount of user created content a tablet will run intoi its limitations. But that's by design. A tablet is a consumption device as against to a production/consumption device like a laptop or a desktop. And many people are fine with it.

My parent for example hate typing. The just forwad me emails or read stuff on the internet. Tablet is perfectly fine for people like them.

As for android tablets, GOOG really needs to do something with their inconsistent UI. It somehow feels cheap. Be it the tablet or the phones. Both AAPL and MSFT offferings look much classier compared to theirs.

Buying the new version--pretty much whatever it is--is almost a no-brainer.

You had a good reply going up until this point, but here you make me question your judgment.

Even if it's true that a tablet -- a 1st generation iPad -- was an important innovation for you, it in no way follows that an upgrade from the 1st generation to the 2nd generation will justify laying out that much money again.

One imagines that it's something along the lines of 80/20. You probably captured 80% of the possible utility with the 1G product (I suspect even more than that). If the 2G product has improvements bringing that to, say, 90% (adding 10 additional points), then it's only delivering 1/8 as much utility, and is thus far more expensive per unit of utility.

It almost certainly does not make sense to buy the new one, precisely because you derive so much utility from the original.

> you make me question your judgment

Let me explain where I'm coming from:

1. The iPad was and is a discretionary purchase, a luxury. It is not something I personally need. YMMV;

2. It is something I use because I find it useful but, more to the point, I enjoy using it; and

3. With a certain nebulous budget for tech purchases the iPad has more than justified it's cost in terms of my own criteria; and

4. Apple being Apple, the upgrade is highly unlikely to be purely cosmetic. Sure if it's the same processor/RAM with the a slightly thinner design, there's no need for me to buy but I see the tablet market as being like PCs in the 90s: the pace of technology change is still huge. Compare the iPhone 4 to the 3GS in terms of display, CPU, etc.

So I don't mean "no brainer" as "I (will) need the upgrade". Rather I'm fairly certain it'll be something I will want and can easily justifying buying, even considering the switching cost (cost of a new one - cost of selling my old one).

I got to agree. I got caught up in the tablet fever like everyone last year, but in practice all the complaints that people had with the iPad release panned out. Tablets across the board are jacks of few trades, master of none. Terrible input, only so-so for web browsing/reading, and basically on par with a laptop for video and portability.

To quote a very smart man in 2003 [1], tablets are still only good for "a bunch of rich guys who want a third computer" (edit: relevant tablet talk is around 8:00-10:00). I have hope things will be better 3-5 years from now.

1: http://video.allthingsd.com/video/steve-jobs-onstage-at-d1/1...

In my unscientific survey, netbook usage far outstrips tablet usage in cafes. Moreover, the people who bring tablets don't seem to really use them, they just glance at them occasionally.

An iPad just seems like a very expensive Kindle.

If Tablet prices get down to say, $50, they'd be great to hang in the kitchen and get weather and recipes from!

In my unscientific survey, MacBook Pro's outrank iPads, which outrank generic Windows laptops in cafe's.

Moreover, in a further unscientific survey, paperback books outrank hardcover books, who's usage surpasses the Kindle and Nook, combined.

And I live in San Francisco. Moreover, the people who bring any of these items don't seem to drink their coffee! feigned shock

I won't disagree with your observations. I will however point out one thing: the sampling is skewed because you only really see what people are doing in public.

I would guess that the majority of iPad usage is in the home and, to a lesser extent, in the office, so much so that I probably won't even buy the 3G version of the iPad 2 (I have the 64GB 3G iPad). Plus now I live in New York (rather than Australia, when I bought mine) and wifi is much more readily available here (Starbuck's for one) if I feel inclined to take it with me and need the internet.

One disappointing thing is that Apple seems to be doing the big CPU/memory upgrades of the An platform with the iPhone, not the iPad. This is annoying for two reasons:

1. The iPhone 4 came out a mere ~3 months after the iPad. Are you telling me that this 3 month gap meant the iPad couldn't have 512MB of RAM like the iPhone 4? Presumably, the iPad 2 and iPhone 5 will be on a similar gap; and

2. I'm more interested in processing capacity on the iPad than an iPhone.

Women especially love having the iPad at home.

If you're going to generalize like that, it's best to cite some evidence to back it up.

It comes from my admittedly small sample size. The women I know (friends, family) have always ignored tech purchases their significant others brought into the home.

But not with the iPad; they ended up being very active users. In bed, on the couch, in the kitchen, etc

Come on. Apple directly markets to the latte set - it's their target audience. It'd be as silly as saying that MS has the best OS because that's what all the high-end gamers use.

Also, on the hardcover thing, we must live in very different areas, because even excluding novels, most books people have lying around are paperbacks and while there are a few hardbacks, they're not used with anything like the regularity of e-readers.

In my unscientific survey, netbook usage far outstrips tablet usage in cafes. Moreover, the people who bring tablets don't seem to really use them, they just glance at them occasionally.

In my equally unscientific survey tablets far outstrip netbook usage on public transport. As to your second point I think most people consider that an overwhelming positive for tablets. You don't have to "use" them like you do with a real computer. You can just glance at them occasionally and very quickly do whatever it was you wanted to do and then get back to doing whatever you where at the cafe to do, like eat food or talk to friends.

An iPad just seems like a very expensive Kindle.

But it is a Kindle you can comfortably browse the web, check your mail, twitter and facebook and play Angry Bird on. Reading e-books is relatively low on the list of things most people I know use their iPad for.

Tablets across the board are jacks of few trades, master of none.

My tablet is the master of social web browsing - browsing the web with other people around, remaining engaged. Browsing the web on a laptop is typically pretty isolating - even just the posture required to handle a laptop while browsing requires sitting down by yourself somewhere. With my tablet I can stand around or sit on the couch with other people around and my body language doesn't suggest that I want to be left alone.

Remember that a laptop isn't exactly a master of any trade either. Even my mbp's keyboard isn't quite as good as a standard pc104 desktop keyboard. The screen is always smaller and located sub optimally wrt your hands and eyes compared to a desktop computer's monitor. The trackpad on most laptops is a terrible input device - too small and not accurate enough for fast cursor manipulation - a mouse is usually better.

Another savvy computer user goes on the internet and declares that he prefers laptops to tablets ... shocking.

The ipad, isn't made with people like the author in mind ... they're made for people who generally find using laptops a PITA (yes ... there are Millions of people like this).

The other market is for the people who get tired of working on their laptops from time to time (and thats where the author seems to fit). What you'll find with this group is people who try to do things with the ipad but realize that they simply prefer being on laptops (probably a lot of us here on Hacker News).

And for everyone of those you'll have people like me ... the ipad has filled a great gap for me, which I'll call leisure computing ... sitting in my bed on Sunday mornings watching netflix movies, mindlessly browsing facebook and twitter ... responding to work emails before I hit the sack at night ... showing presentations, images etc during meetings instead of having to lug around my laptop.

I thought the ipad would fail spectacularly when it came out, but its success has made it clear to me that there is a world of computer users out there who simply do not view computing the way I do, and not only do they want a simplified computing experience they are willing to pay very good money for a for it ... we on HN would do well to not lose sight of that.

I love my iPad. It's taken over as my mobile computing solution in most cases. I think there are more possibilities left to explore with tablets in general, and I think exercising more innovation will only lead to greater things in that arena. I use my tablet for reading, mailing, surfing, and communicating while not having to be tethered to a terminal. I honestly can ask this question now after having experienced the joys of this computing platform : Where has this been my entire life?

I think the author misses a key point of tablets: they're not for information production. I can't think of anyone who prefers tablets for writing or coding, but I do know a bunch of people who like getting stock quotes, reading the news, using Instapaper, and consuming content. The analogy with the scribe doesn't really work because the purpose of the tablet is to consume content, and actual user input is minimal.

I beg to differ on the production thing. I do some of my fiction writing on my iPad using a Bluetooth keyboard.

I guess I overlooked the keyboard addition. But would you say that a laptop provides a better interface? Or do you like the iPad more than a laptop for writing? I haven't actually used a keyboard with a tablet, so I don't have any personal experience with that.

I find my ipad with a dropbox compatiable editor is sufficient for my writing needs, but my laptop is certainly more efficient. For anything other then sustained reading or using a highly specific app my laptop is definitely faster and easier to use. I just find portability to trump efficiency in a great may suitations. If am at my desk I want my MacBook Pro with it's vastly superior sound card and my Grados. Anywhere else, I'll take my iPad and same earbuds if I don't have any programming to do.

Edit: fixing overly zealous iPad autocorrect

Where does the tablet go when you're not holding it?

This setup rapidly turns into a series of kludges to make the thing work.

At home I do carry it everywhere. When I go out, I have a 10.1" netbook bag which holds my iPad, keyboard, camera, charging cables, and earbuds. It's easy to carry around everywhere even to resuarants and the local B&N store.

I only use the keyboard when I plan to do a lot of writing. Right now I'm just using the software keyboard.

I've long argued that the reason we haven't seen tablets take off in general is because while nobody really wants to admit it, nobody actually likes tablets. They just like Apple products.

This will be either proved or disproved when up to 20 new tablets are released by July. If you're right, it's gonna be ugly.

The Blackberry Playbook has some interesting ideas, like using the touch-screen real estate outside of the viewing area for 'meta-gestures' (my made up word sorry, some nitpicker will no doubt jump in and correct me, and then get 10x the karma for it but whatever).

But the overall execution is going to suck really really badly. Also, RIM are busy peeing in their developers porridge... kinda like Nokia and the QT debacle.

I think the problem is that Apple has been working on this thing for years and years and years. Rumours of a tablet have been much exaggerated since before the iPhone came along.

Now the other guys are scrambling to catch up. And they're finding that in order to poop something out in six months, you have to cut corners, and if you cut corners, then quality suffers etc. Not to mention that things move slowly at most large corporations (Apple included - heck, they might even be worse than all the others, but because they fail in secret everybody thinks they magically just coughed hard one day and the iPad sprang forth from Steve Job's brow fully formed)

People have been saying this about Apple products for years.

iPhone? "Nobody really wants it they just like Apple because it's trendy"

Mac mini? (Back when it first came out and was under $500 even though the 'experts' all agreed that Apple was institutionally incapable of producing a computer for under $1000) "Nobody really wants it they just like Apple because it's trendy"

iPod? "Nobody really wants it they just like Apple because it's trendy"

iMac? "Nobody really wants it they just like Apple because it's trendy"

iBook? "Nobody really wants it they just like Apple because it's trendy"

Mac Pro? (back when it first came out with the Xeons and was massively cheaper than the Dell equivalent) "Nobody really wants it they just like Apple because it's trendy"

Mac Cube? "Nobody really wants it..."

Well, I'll give you that last one. :D

I was at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona last week. Believe me, tablets are taking off big time. Not least because while lots of people like Apple products, no-one but Apple likes Apple to lead. Apple's already lost leadership in smartphone, and it's hard to see how they won't be outpaced by the end of the year in tablets too.

Smartphone shipments outran PCs (all kinds) last quarter, tablets are going to head that way too. Nobody loves tablets yet, but a heavy dose of competition and high volume will create the pressure to innovate and create something new and compelling.

I think therefore I exist. I like tablets, so your logic axiom is proven false.

Why do I love tablets?

I like having a computer I can move with, I can jump with, that is lean and lightweight.

I like using my computer in my car with GPS, and tablets are awesome here.

I like rotating the screen because reading is better in portrait mode. I read a lot.

I like using my fingers and hands to interact with my computer.

I love being able to draw and take notes on the screen directly(soon tablets will be able to do this as the touch resolution increases).

Of course if Windows, or better Ubuntu and Mac worked on tablets I will love it even more. Eventually is going to happen, what do you think MacOSX lion is aimed for? They are quietly paving the road for that integration in the future.

"I like using my fingers and hands to interact with my computer."

Trust me, the keyboard and mouse that is controlled by psychokinesis has not been invented yet. Fingers and hands are a requirement to deal with pretty much all computers...

The thing is, nothing beats a tablet (well, I use an iPad) for reading.

Instapaper (articles, news), iBooks (pdf, ebooks), Reeder (rss), Safari (everything else) are all excellent. I can't lay in bed with my laptop or desktop, nor does reading on my phone cut it. The Kindle is nice, but it's black and white, and for me the lack of backlight makes it harder to read (esp. since I'm reading at night, and don't want to have a light on).

Not only is it the best way to read, but it also can handle emails (you get used to the keyboard quickly, just like people got used to touch-screen phone keyboards, but I can type at a reasonable speed on the iPad).

And it can play games…and a lot more.

So, I like it. I'll continue to buy tablets.

How is the ipad on the eyes? My eyes get tired from reading from a laptop screen at night. Is the ipad better?

To be honest, I can read on my laptop for a long, long time without my eyes getting sore. I do think the iPad is better on the eyes, though, as I have read books on the iPad in few sittings without problems. My parents also report no eye strain.

iPad is definitely easier on the eyes. I can read continously for eight hours or more without eyestrain.

It obviously is exactly the same because the iPad uses a laptop screen. (It has a higher quality IPS and not the usual TN panel [1] but I don’t think that matters a great deal. IPS panels have better color reproduction and better viewing angles, that’s the only difference to lower quality LCD panels.) The iPad screen has even a similar number of pixels per inch compared to current laptops. (A 15" laptop with a resolution of 1680×1050 has, like the iPad, about 130 ppi.)

As far as readability goes, it’s probably currently the best color video screen you can get in the market [2], you can probably do better if all you need is grayscale without video.

[1] You can get laptops with IPS panels but they are pretty exotic and more expensive.

[2] As in: the best technology for the job (compared to, for example, e-ink), not the best LCD panel in the market.

Note that the iPad screen brightness can be turned down very far. Note that most reading software even includes some option to additionally turn the brightness down by basically putting a grey filter of the screen. Note that most reading software (not iBooks) includes a white-on-black mode. With all that you can turn down the brightness to absurdly low levels that are not achievable with laptop software.

Another thing that's better about reading on iPad versus a laptop or desktop LCD screen is that you can hold it almost any angle. To me, that's the best advantage. I read and write a lot on my iPad, and being able to sit with it at a more comfortable angle is a huge advantage to me. It definitely feels better on my eyes after looking at a desktop monitor for hours. That'd be subjective, though, but my experience is that the iPad feels easier on my eyes.

That said, I'm not sure if it's better on your neck versus a standard laptop in your lap. My neck hurts if I'm using a netbook on my lap too long, so I'm always using it at a desk or table. It never feels that bad typing in my lap on iPad, though.

I find it easier on my eyes, but YMMV.

http://imgur.com/jPXrT

Consider color temperature when reading at night: http://stereopsis.com/flux/

Consider your sanity when using flux. It has all kinds of weird interactions with other software (VMWare especially was unusable with Flux installed), and it's also very stupid about time zone changes. I ultimately ended up just uninstalling it out of frustration.

Maybe Redshift will work better for you? http://jonls.dk/redshift/

The iPad have more quality screen that almost all laptops, but if your eyes get tired, maybe you need to change your environment too.

The eyes are very complex, there are a lot of things you can do to improve:

1)use lights to illuminate the room, sounds stupid but your environment needs to have the same luminosity than your screens, because when you glaze at it it needs accommodation of the eyes.

2) Adjust the screen global luminosity, refer to 1.

3)If you can, like on linux, change your window theme to a dark one, so light contrast do not fatigue your eyes, something like this will do: http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Atolm?content=136789

4)Change your browser default background and text foreground colors at night(background of 90% web pages use to be white, with so much bright areas, better bright on dark than dark on write). It will look bad at first but your eyes will improve a lot.

Try reading an iPad outside, it sucks. The Kindle lets you read in some fresh air without squinting your eyes out.

I may not be representative of most people, but I rarely read outside. I find myself reading more on plains, trains, and at home curled up on a couch.

Given that usage pattern, the glare makes little difference (but the iPad's increased utility makes it a worthwhile "upgrade").

It'd be nice for the iPad to be more readable outside, but it'd be even nicer IMO for the Kindle to be more readable in the dark/dim.

Living in South Carolina, it'll be 75-80 degrees F every day for the next few months. Not being able to read a book/magazine/blog.. outside would make me go a bit bonkers.

People often say that, but I can read my iPad fine even in bright sunlight when I turn the brightness up. And I can also read it in the dark without an external light source.

In my opinion, the iPad basically wins by exploiting the niche of how dreadful reading on laptops has become since 4:3 screens were phased out. I hate widescreen.

My wife, a non-geek by all measures, uses her Acer netbook for browsing / reading or watching movies in bed.

That netbook is not optimal for work either, but she can run Office on it, she can plug a real keyboard and a bigger monitor to it, and all the software she ever used is compatible with that netbook.

iBooks? How about Windows Explorer + whatever PDF viewer you'd like?

Laptops are big and heavy, but tablets compete with netbooks, not laptops.

There's only one thing for which I'd prefer an iPad ... technical books. The Kindle is too small for that, and Kindle DX too expensive. But as soon as Amazon drops the price on DX, I'll buy one.

esp. since I'm reading at night, and don't want to have a light on

Eh? So... a tiny booklight integrated into the Kindle's cover counts as a 'light' and is therefore Not Good, but a sizeable screen that lights up your face and what's behind it is apparently Kudos Awesome?

> the lack of backlight makes it harder to read (esp. since I'm reading at night, and don't want to have a light on

You'll have to admit that this is a very particular use case though.

The points he raises are the reasons I never liked tablets. Sure, I respect the iPad, and I'd kind of like to have one, but for what? Productivity? Laptop. Web surfing? Laptop. Movies? Laptop or TV. Games? PS3. It simply isn't good enough at anything to make me want one. I still respect it, but I've never been able to get behind the idea of buying one. I've been counselling people to grab the Air, as it's a fantastic solution for some non-technical frequent travellers I know, but I've never told anyone to get an iPad. I simply just don't get the point.

Probably because there is no point once you peel back the layers of marketing and breathless fanboyism. I've seen two (2) of these things in the wild since they came out. I live in one of the top three tech hubs on the east coast and I've been to countless meetup groups, starbucks, panera and at least one international developer conference in that time.

Both of the people I saw with ipads where eager to breathlessly tell everyone around them how their shiny new $500 purchase had changed everything for all time. In both instances once the sales pitch was done the clunky gadget went back in the bag it came out of or sat unused on a conference room table.

Well I use it a ton every single week. I ride the train for about 3 hours per day (total), with connections. With a laptop the start/suspend cycle made it just not worth it to use on some of the connections. I can use the iPad any time I'm still long enough to justify taking it out of the bag. I've recovered most of my travel time for reading or watching movies now.

I got an iPad in April, at launch, and gave it away at Christmas. I wanted a tablet to replace two distinct sets of physical objects that haven't yet gone digital: my moleskine/writing pads and my library of magazines and reference books. The iPad is useless for scribbling and the reading experience (the screen, the weight, the UI) is poor. The iPad doesn't autodeliver new content and I fear Apple has killed the inchoate market for digital newspapers, magazines and the like with the new heavyhanded rules for digital subscriptions. The iPad had great promise but it is unfulfilled.

I think it's important to separate the advent of the touch screen interface from the form factor of a tablet.

I kind of agree that tablets are pretty poor for everything (unlike others I think tablets & the iPad specifically is a mostly poor device even just for consumption, mainly because it can't stand up by itself, and it's near useless outdoors). But I can see that the touch screen interface has revolutionized interaction with computers, most especially with very young and very old people. Touch screens are the real revolution that is going on now and while the form factor is a part of it I think it's secondary.

"I think it's important to separate the advent of the touch screen interface from the form factor of a tablet."

I think you're kind of missing the point then. Apple didn't invent touch screens, touch screens have been around for a loooong time.

You need to borrow an iPad and a 2 year old, and then watch the 2 year old interact with the iPad. Heck, I've seen 1 year olds playing with them. Now I'm not suggesting that a 1 year old is doing anything more than going "look at the pretty stars"†

Now imagine that you're using a touchscreen on your desktop Minority Report style. It's alright if you pretend to be Tom Cruise, I'll wait. Okay, now hold your arms out at maximum extension and move them around in little circles for a while. Now back and forth. Now up and down. Now go back to circles. Have you done 15 minutes yet? Liar! Do 15 minutes of that. Okay, now that your arms are on fire with pain, imagine doing that all day long. Yeah. Now you know why we're not gonna see touch-screens as a practical input method on a desktop for a while.

Conclusion: don't make the mistake of under-rating the form factor as part of the experience.

†Free upvote if you get the reference. :D

Ironically I have a 3 year old and a 8 month old and also an iPad. It's exactly from their use of the iPad, my parent's use of the iPad and my own and my wife's that I make these observations.

Re: form factor - I agree that these things are linked - but I'm saying the touch screen is the killer innovation. Yes, the form factor allows the touch screen to be used comfortably, but people don't really care about the form factor per se. Lack of a keyboard doesn't enable me to flick photos to browse my photo album, or to pinch to zoom on them, or to draw with my fingers on the screen - the touch screen does. A device with a slide out keyboard would do that just as well. It's just that there are significant design challenges in building such a thing so we haven't seen a convincing version of it yet. But we might.

I think the author gets tripped up in the classic "all users look like me" cognitive trap. Just by mentioning OmniFocus, we know he is a power user of some type. Which means his article probably contains any number of very good points, but the title should have been "Why power users won't care very much about tablets soon."

For regular users, the list of use cases the author proposes should also include: To do all these things, I want to just press a button on my home screen. Anything else may confuse me.

Over Christmas, I told my 70 year old mother (who has never sent an email, seen YouTube, or looked up directions on Google Maps) that I had downloaded a quilting application on my iPad. And left it, powered off, where she could get to it. I returned 10 minutes later, and she was happily creating a complicated quilting pattern on the iPad.

While a macbook air would let some types of users create quilting patterns more efficiently, OSX is just too complicated for my mom and many others like her.

I think the author gets tripped up in the classic "all users look like me" cognitive trap.

Um, no he doesn't. Did you miss the title?: "Why I don't care very much about tablets anymore". This "all users look like me cognitive trap" line of yours is bullshit. The guy was only talking about himself, his own uses.

Also, I'm tired of seeing people like you say, "the title should've been this"... "the title should've been that". This title was fine and more than appropriate. Besides that, he can give his article whatever title he damn well pleases.

I like the point about hands being in the way. That was the first thing that turned me away from iPad when I tried typing an email. I still think tablets are best for information consumption such as browsing internet and simple tasks such as making an order at a restaurant. The best uses of an iPad I've seen are mounted in the dashboard of a car, back of the car seat, table in a restaurant, and magazine basket.

Agree. Hands-in-the-way bothers me on phones as well. Plus keyboard device users don't have to worry about the fingerprint-smear effect.

It's an especially huge problem for games on touchscreen phones.

My iPad has been in my bathroom for all of 2011 so far. Like this piece's author, I don't find the iPad to be a very useful device, because it really isn't better than a computer at very many things (and does not fit in your pocket, unlike its far more useful siblings).

But, for dukey-time reading, I must say that it markedly outperforms my previous system (which consisted mainly of musty back issues of the Economist).

I think people are making too big of a deal out of all these tablets coming out. Android 3.0 looks like a great OS and I'd love to have a device that runs it, but I don't think they're as useful as people believe them to be.

The main reason they're becoming so widespread is because carriers are offering them with 3G data plans. People use them for tethering, etc. I have an iPad that I hardly use. The thing is useful sometimes, but it's just so rare that I actually take it out to use it when I have my netbook, desktop, and an Android phone that's more powerful...

Tablets are not for us, but they are for someone. I bought my wife an iPad and she loves it, not for the gee-whiz factor but because it's well suited to how she use a computer at home.

I like my iPad a lot, too. And I have a feeling I'd use a Xoom more than my iPad. But it's more a novelty thing. You can't be extremely productive on it like you can on a cheap netbook. I'm not saying they don't have a market, but it looks like an artifcially created market.

I think tablets will be immensely more useful in a few years when you can do a hell of a lot more on them.

I got in a lot of fights with Apple fans over this last year. :) My point is that tablets have never ever taken off---even though various companies have been trying for decades.

Of course the argument that the iPad is different from every other device in history due to ubiquitous internet access and multi-touch. And I admit that I couldn't even convince myself entirely that those weren't game changers, but a year later it seems that the verdict is in: they're not.

PS: One of my Apple friends just bought a Macbook Air and was trying to sell his iPad to me last week. :)

I vastly prefer my iPad over a laptop. The only reason I have my laptop anymore is for a few games and programming.

>a year later it seems that the verdict is in: they're not.

Not entirely sure what world it is you live in... how has touchable computing not been a game-changer? Just look at all the iDevice apps out there, and how frequently and powerfully the UI decisions there have changed desktop applications.

My argument isn't that touch devices haven't taken off, nor do I argue that ubiquitous internet isn't a huge deal for the pocket computing market. I love my new Nexus S for those reasons, and I'm sure if Palm had had those features ten years ago, we'd be in a different place today.

My argument is that---regardless of those features' importance for pocket computing---they haven't changed the game for tablet devices. Tablet devices remain wedged in that space where they're too big for the pocket and too small for the lap or desk. If you're going out, take your phone; if you're staying in, you might as well use your laptop and get some work done.

15 Million Ipads sold in one year would seem to handily contradict whatever argument you're trying to make. People love tablet pcs, because they simplify computing for them ... a lot of people on hacker news don't get that, because using computers (in all their delicious complexity) is generally second nature for us.

$15 million impresses you?

Chump change.

15 million iPads sold in one year certainly impresses me, that's 5% of the US population reached ... In one year.

The iPad was sold worldwide.

How did 15 million tablets become $15 million?

No, but >$500*15M=$7.5B in less than a year with a new product in a went-nowhere-for-decades category does.

I'm going to assume the parent post wasn't edited. I swore there was a dollar sign there.

What’s your evidence for that conclusion? The iPad is selling much better than expected. You can’t yet buy other, similar devices but they will be coming to the market in large numbers very soon.

I agree that this is too little information to say anything definitive about the future of the tablet market but it is definitely not enough information to conclude that the iPad is not a “game changer”. Many people would, based on the phenomenal success of the iPad alone, argue that it is most definitely a game changer. I’m not prepared to make that statement just yet but it seems pretty weird to me to conclude the exact opposite, at least at this point in time.

The iPad is a game changer, anything called a tablet running Windows isn't in the same class.

The thing is, most people aren't scribes.

The iPad isn't a good laptop replacement. It's something new. Developers are still in the early stages of figuring out what this means.

Rule #1 of entrepreneurship? Make sure your product solves an existing problem. If tablets don't do this then they fail.

Just because it’s something new and unlike a laptop doesn’t mean that it doesn’t solve an existing problem.

An existing problem is not always codified through speech: rather, we may not understand the problem because it is such a part of the fabric of our life we cannot consider the alternative. It’s possible that tablets and their rapidly evolving OSes have not been around to show us the distinction between digital data retrieval and desktop computing. This is not the same as a manufactured problem. Using digital data in the field has always been shitty, but it’s been up until now that we’ve understood that computers must be in some static form, not a clipboard. Previous tablets most likely failed through latching an OS for sitting onto a computer for walking.

The same issue is in art: our modern idols are merely the most recognizable stop points in a continuous evolution of style and formality. In retrospect, it’ll be easier to see the distinction between tablet and laptop five years from now.

See also: the faster horse in your garage or driveway.

Apple is selling a ton of them, so by your logic they must be solving someone's existing problem. Unless your definition of entrepreneurship fail encompasses "selling a lot of product and making a lot of profits."

Revolutionary tools seldom solve existing problems, instead they give us new abilities or mental modes for dealing with the world. (And sometimes it gives us new _limitations_ as well...)

In other words, an automobile is not simply a better horse. A word processor is not just a better typewriter. A printing press isn't just a faster scribe.

While there may be some overlap between abilities between the old and the new, and that overlap is often a useful marketing tool, that is usually the least interesting area.

The problem they solve is that ordinary computers are too complex and unreliable for the average user. Watch somebody over 50 with an iPad for 15 minutes and it makes sense.

That's not what makes them interesting to me though. They may make a better email reader for Joe Average but it's the interactive audio & graphics possibilities that intrigue me.

The first time I used Windows 3.11 it was a toy compared with the real work you could do with DOS and all their programs. In Windows, you could use the mouse to paint, that is, all the big games and programs were still DOS.

Ipad today is a toy like iphone 1.0 was, but this will change as the technology matures.

Using Wired's awful iPad app and its ludicrous 700MB downloads as an example of how magazines are bad on tablets is a joke.

Go try the Economist app and then come back and try to make the same argument. I hardly read my print copies anymore.

seconded. worldwide distribution at midnight thursday. the economist is excellent (nb didn't translate the UX to the the sister pub Intelligent Life - good articles but doesn't behave as expected)

One reason content can look good in a tablet is that it's designed with UX in mind. Print design has always favored maximizing the content per page over actual usability.

My completely unsolicited experience: I didn't think I really wanted a tablet until I went out and bought a Nook Color and hacked the thing. Even in it's really rough state, it's become a constant companion. I really like the smaller (7" I think) form factor of the device. I tried an iPad and it was just a bit bigger than I wanted to tote around. A slightly smaller version fits me just right... with a proper case it's as easy to carry as a book.

I can't wait for honeycomb to hit AOSP, then this $250 device is just a steal.

A lof of the author's point hinges on his affection for dead-tree media and television. If at all possible, I read pdf's on my laptop instead of books, and I kind of prefer watching TV on my laptop as well.

Of course, I love my laptop and can't see blowing my disposable income (of which there is not that much), on something which duplicates only the unproductive functionality of my laptop.

However, as an older and richer man, I could see myself having a desktop and a tablet instead of a laptop.

I've been following this industry now since the "old days" and the author is essentially saying that a miniframe will never be quite as good as a mainframe. Or that a workstation will never be as cool as a miniframe. Or that a PC will never be as cool as a workstation. Or that a luggable will never be as good as a PC. It's really about the right tool for the right job. Once tablets cost $10 each you'll be forgetting that you own a few of them...

Regarding tactile feedback. I recently just re-enabled audio feedback on my Chumby (resistive screen), and the combination of physical push + audible 'click' is sufficient for most of my need for feedback, and those of my 3-year-old.

I also have the vibrate feedback on my Nexus One, and find that for small capacitive screens a subtle vibrate executed on the exact click-fire to be extremely useful.

Neither of these will ever compare to old-school keyboard tactile response - something that laptop keyboards also fail to equal - but funnily enough I find the N1 input feedback more satisfying than a MBP keyboard.

We're a long way off programatically raised areas on low-cost touch-input devices. That said, Apple have a long track record of amazing UX and must be looking into these options. I suspect the tactile vibrate experience wasn't too compelling on the scale of the iPad, but it wouldn't surprise me if this feature appeared (localised in quadrants?) in future iPad versions to afford better feedback for typing and other operations.

Because his hands are in the way? Really?

I guess he doesn't use a touch based phone either..

Not when he's in his own house he wont, no.

You think a phone is a good way to interact with a computer? There is exactly one reason why I love my phone: it fits in my pocket. When I'm in a location where a larger device is convenient, rest assured that I am not working on my phone. Tablets have always seemed silly to me: they don't do anything well and they don't fit in my pocket.

> ... this separation of our productive workspace into display and input planes has been with us since the dawn of writing, ... and it means that multitouch tablets will continue to be novelty/entertainment items.

> So a new tablet will never be exciting the way that a new, luxury gel ink pen will be exciting, or a new leather journal, or ...

This seems inconsistent to me. The way I interact with a leather journal, or a sketchbook, or a notepad, or any paper that I write or draw upon, is very much like a tablet: there's only one surface I interact with, not two. The author seems to enjoy this arrangement, as I do.

The author did specify multitouch, and I agree that multitouch seems better suited to simpler interactions and media consumption, at least based upon my experience with it so far. Even taking that into account, though, I think his diagnosis of the problem is wrong; for me, the problem is not having one surface instead of two, but the inability to use a precise stylus! An iPad or iPad-like device which could use a stylus with the accuracy of a Wacom tablet in addition to supporting multitouch would be a real game changer for me.

Fortunately, I don't expect to wait too long for this; the advantages are too obvious. When such a device is announced, I feel confident it will be more exciting than a new luxury gel ink pen, even for Jon Stokes.

"Fortunately, I don't expect to wait too long for this; the advantages are too obvious. When such a device is announced, I feel confident it will be more exciting than a new luxury gel ink pen, even for Jon Stokes."

There are already tablet prototypes with pen input, it does not have tilt and rotation like wacom does but normal ink pen have not either. I bet on Apple being the first to make it mass produced as usual.

Tablets don't excite me either, it makes me appreciate the tactile feel of a keyboard and the benefits of using a mouse (you can't hover like you can with a mouse with touch input on an ipad).

I use a hp touchsmart, which is an affordable laptop-tablet hybrid. It's a fantastic input device due to wacom technology (shame ipad doesn't excel at pen input), but using the touch screen with my hands is only really convenient when I'm laying back consuming content leisurely.

Convenience and price is how disruption starts. Why did anyone buy a cell phone if they had a landline? It was worse in every way, except portability.

Yeah, but what one way are tablets better than other things? You get to use your fingers? I'm still wholly unconvinced that is 'better'.

One way? Simplicity.

My feeling is that the iPad is considered better than laptops and netbooks because the Big Three operating systems (Windows, Mac, and Linux) are too complex for the vast majority of users. Of course, a simple OS should be possible on a non-tablet, non-phone device, but there's just too much baggage to just start from scratch. The iPhone/iPad had a clean slate.

One way: you can use it standing up. (There are other ways, but I hope this one is enough to satisfy your request and clear enough to not need a lot of debate.)

Except your option was a cell phone or a land line.

In this case you've got a choice between smartphone, ultralight laptop, netbook, and tablet.

Your options were landline, cellphone, carphone, suitcase phone, VHF, and CB. Each one had their pros and cons. For example, Nextel IDEN phones had excellent PTT that rivaled VHF. The Nokia/Orange version was inferior in every way. Sprint eventually shutdown that band down and twitter (and facebook) took its place.

To be fair, portability is a huge deal.

Since when are laptops not portable?

It's not even like the ipad is particularly portable, like my regular laptop (although unlike my netbook.....) I cannot fit it in my pockets, I would need to carry a bag for it anyway. Throw in having to carry a keyboard and some sort of stand as well to make the thing actually usable, and suddenly laptops start looking way more portable.

I was talking about phones.

I don't own a tablet, saw one in action for the first time a week ago and the owner and I basically came up with the same reasons why it's rather useless as the ones mentioned in the article. It's definitely nice to have for reading in bed or keeping up 'on the road' but overall it seems to be pretty reduced to 'consuming' instead of 'producing'.

One thing I like about tablets is that they made publishers reconsider how they can bring a better and more rich 'experience' to their readers (subscribers). But I wonder how long it will take until they notice that they should rework their web pages as well. I am so tired of (nearly) all web 'articles' ('features') just consisting of a headline and endless blocks of text, maybe an embedded video and some links, you could do so much more.

'you could do so much more'

Could you elaborate on this? It is not immediately obvious to me.

Sure. When you look at a 'proper magazine' there is a lot more work regarding to the layouts, additional info graphics and such. And I guess the iPad app versions of current magazines have got all these plus animated graphics, timelines, better integration of video and all that.

I am not saying a daily news site really needs this but even in articles that are not time-critical you usually only see large chunks of text or paginated slideshows. Considering that you can basically do 'everything' on the web, it would be nice to see sites with a focus on content really take advantage of this.

I could also imagine today's sites 'borrowing' some stylistic devices from TV documentaries and the like. Sure, all of this needs some more work. But it seems to be possible on tablets, so why not on the web? I don't get that.

I hope it's a bit more clear now.

>No tactile feedback

That might be partially solved soonish, actually. http://www.hizook.com/blog/2010/08/11/electrotactile-arrays-...

>Instead, what all magazine publishers produced (Condé Nast included) was a bloated, multitouch-enabled version of the exact same "new media" experience that used to ship on a CD-ROM under the name "multimedia."

Not surprised about this in the least. The vast majority will always do what never worked previously - we need people to make a few revolutionary improvements, then we'll see better tablet content across the board.

Finally, a classic Jon Stokes "get off my lawn" piece. It's been a while. Maybe the winter weather is getting to him.

Personally, the tablet is the ideal "sitting on the couch browsing the web during commercials or boring moments" device, for which my iPhone had served previously. That and maybe a few casual games or acting as a rich remote for other media center devices. I'd imagine once a front-facing camera is standard, it'll be a common Skype device as well. I really don't know what Jon would be contented with given his issues with tablets, other than a brain implant. As for me, I loves me some tablets, and I've bought my last laptop; it's all desktops and tablets from here on out.

I think it's interesting that he mentions that monitor + keyboard is better than a tablet because it separates out the input from the output areas and the "hands don't get in the way". But if you take the total surface of the keyboard plus your desktop monitors, it's way bigger than the area of the tablet. Make a giant tablet that's 32"x32" or some such, and I think it could be superior to monitor + keyboard for some things. The tablet lets you mix what areas are input and what are output for various applications, and that's way more flexible than being locked into fixed proportions.

https://www.microsoft.com/surface/

All that's missing is a smug logo, and it'll be a hit!

(also mentioned in the article)

The point seems to be that it doesn't do all the things that the author wants it to do. And, it doesn't have to.

Anybody who knows what his talking about is not saying that computers are dead, and that tablets are the way forward. In the same way, nobody is complaining that smartphones are crap because it's hard to create content on them.

Obviously the use cases are different.

Now would somebody who mostly consumes content ditch the computer for a tablet? Possibly. Would somebody who creates content ditch the computer for a tablet or smartphone? Doubt it.

At the same time, this is not a zero sum game. People can own a computer and tablet.

The problem is that people who should know what they're talking about have said things like 'the tablet will eventually replace other computer set-ups' a lot when tablets first came up. And I don't think it's a problem of 'adapting' if you claim that this won't happen.

At least I won't believe that until someone beats me in 'Typing Of The Dead', desktop versus tablet.

I think the ipad is best of breed for pdf's and comics. Throw in a retina display or whatever hires equivalent you want to use and it's long form magazine nirvana. Sure it's a rich geeks toy...but what a toy.

This actually a great idea, a display with a tactile experience. For example when you touch an icon, that portion of the screen could vibrate for a short time (let's say 200ms). Or when you're dragging something on the display there could be a persistent fast vibration (so that in reality is not a vibration anymore) on that specific area of the screen that makes you "feel" the dragged item on your finger.

The killer app for tablets right now is Pulse. It allows you to consumer information probably 3-5 times as fast as any other medium. They do it by displaying a lot of information quickly about a lot of articles with a UI that is unparallel.

Because of Pulse alone, I use my iPad everyday. It's the FASTEST way to read news.

> until someone comes up with a tablet that can do something unique and special that nothing else in my life can do better...

I find that drawing and painting on the iPad is better than on any non-tablet devices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com