Is it only about the money and "instant cool" though? I can't recall Jobs doing anything charitable on any scale with his company or his gadgets. Whatever I may think of Mr. Gates's company, the man has spent the last decade giving back around the globe in demonstrable ways. It's like the guy (Arnold?) who went out and bought the biggest Hummer made just to show that he could burn more gas than your biggest SUV. Or perhaps the rich lady who spends tens of thousands of dollars on a special purse to carry their fluffy dog around with them in airports. And SuperboyAC, most of the Apple people I know are on my teevee, telling me how great their new shiny toy is. No matter how hard I try, I can't respect CNBC's Erin Burnett.

40hz, perhaps you're not really suggesting that there are "only" these 2 camps, but even suggesting they're the majority seems dubious to me. I think both the gadget/brand nuts and the tech nuts like us are in the minority. It's the reaction of the average people that everyone claims is Apple's market that I'm interested in.

So many arguments about the iPad have gone Person 1: "I hate it, it locks me in to proprietary Apple stuff and doesn't let me do what I want, therefore it will fail!" Person 2: "It's not even meant for you, it's super simple and easy to use, it's meant for average Joe who doesn't even want to think about how to use his computer.", and the latter *would* be a compelling argument if it weren't for some of the comments I'm hearing about "hard to hold and use for long periods of time", "awkward to watch movies on", "expensive for an e-reader", "no direct camera connections", "no USB, easy plug-and-play", "need to use cumbersome iTunes-based process to sync docs with wires, does not work wirelessly", "no flash", and on and on. Thse don't seem like a product that the mainstream, "average Joe" will love.

Not to mention the frustration that will come when a user removes an app from their iPad for whatever reason, only to lose all their documents associated with it. I mean seriously, is that the message Apple wants the average consumer to get?

The sad thing is I think it *will* appeal to average people on the face of it, and it'll only be after some use that they realize how awkward, annoying, etc. it is. I'm just baffled by how bad a first gen Apple product really can be, I guess. I mean they got so much right, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the core concept - I'm not against a simple pad-like device, even if it runs iPhone OS and is limited in some ways - but it really seems like there are some all-too-glaring faults to me. *shrug*

- Oshyan

40hz, perhaps you're not really suggesting that there are "only" these 2 camps, but even suggesting they're the majority seems dubious to me.

Quote from: JavaJones on April 09, 2010, 12:37 AM

The sad thing is I think it *will* appeal to average people

- Oshyan

Actually, for the purposes of this discussion, I am suggesting just that.  

But I don't mean to imply either side has an automatic advantage when it comes to technical sophistication or depth of knowledge. Sorry if I might have come across that way.

To me it comes down to whether or not you're comfortable living within a completely closed information and software ecosystem.

If you don't have a problem with that, Apple's product philosophy will work for you.

If you do have a problem with some entity arbitrarily deciding what you can have and what you can do with it, then it won't. And that's a problem that will remain for this group even if they never actually do exercise their freedom of choice. Having available options is what's crucial to them.

Group A-types believe in the notion of a single "best" way to do things.

Group B-types believe in the notion of a selection of "better" ways  to accomplish things.

So yeah, I guess I really do believe it breaks down into two groups.

The funny thing (to me) is how I keep hearing about the so-called "average person" or "average computer user." From my experience, I'm firmly convinced there's no such a thing - unless you want to apply that label to all the people who don't much care what they use and who therefor take whatever they're given.

Again, this is just my two cents on the topic - but I see a very significant crossroad coming up for the personal computing community. And I see the iPad as one of the first manifestations of the direction it could go in if this product (or some philosophical equivalent) gains widespread market acceptance.

Apple always maintained they were more about vision, ideas, and attitudes than they were about physical products. I think the iPhone and iPad represent an alternate vision of where Apple thinks the world is going (or should be going) when it comes to ubiquitous data access and communications.

It's hard not to sound melodramatic, but the simple truth is there's an awful lot at stake here. You have two irreconcilable visions of how the future web and infospace should work.

And the market will ultimately decide which path the world will go down based on what sells best.

So I guess we'll have to just wait and see if George Orwell - or should I say Steve Jobs(?) - is right.




-----

Note: did a minor edit to correct the grammar in one rambling sentence.

it mirrors much of the way the rest of the world works, for example the difference between politically active people and those who just don't care about politics (even if they still vote).

I agree with you 100%  

What *does* surprise me is how Apple is screwing its target demographic of "those who don't care about lock-in" with all these bizarre limits, issues, etc. I guess it just surprises me that they get away with it.

I guess it surprises me too - even though it shouldn't any more.

But isn't that just another example of your excellent point that it's much of the way the rest of the world works?  

People often treat others in a shabby manner courtesy of the meme which says: those who allow themselves to be pushed around "don't deserve" to be treated any better.