Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

ipadtest.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#81

Post by sirn »

sprout wrote: post #17
mattmaroon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're really not. My dad knows what an iPad is. Unless this device lays golden eggs he'll probably never hear of it. Also, there are unmentioned features in the iPad's favor, most notably an App Store with 200k titles in it.

So your dad never browses Wal-mart, Target, Best Buy, or anywhere else? This is in the netbook range Best buy will throw next to the check-out aisle.

The first thing my dad says when I bought an iPad into my house was "hey was that that Apple thing? Pad something?" It surprised me that he even heard of it, given we're living in Thailand.

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#82

Post by smackfu »

Anon84 wrote: post #28
david927 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love it when the faithful think that features and price are not competitive.

On features and price, a truck beats a Ferrari anytime. People (who can afford them) still prefer Ferrari.

There's a lot of people who look at the Ferrari and then buy something affordable. Apple is always susceptible to that.

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#83

Post by jarek »

jacobolus wrote: post #56
borism wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes it is. most users will end up not adjusting brightness thus hurting their eyes

Do you have any evidence that the brightness of a fully-on iPad screen “hurts eyes”? * * * The human visual system adapts to the level of illumination it is looking at, so the times when eyes “hurt” are basically only when going from being dark-adapted to suddenly looking at something bright: for example, going from a darkened movie theater out into a sunny day. If you turn an iPad on in a completely darkened room, i…

> The human visual system adapts to the level of illumination it is looking at

Anecdotally false. On really bright summer days (and on sunny days in the winter with a lot of snow), outdoors are too bright for my visual system. I have to squint or my eyes will hurt, no matter how long I stay outside to adapt.

Anecdotally this is true for at least some of the people I know as well.

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#84

Post by studer »

j79 wrote: post #72

2) It’s Android — which you can now make your own apps for. I'm guessing my five year old niece, who enjoys playing games on the iPad, won't be purchasing this tablet to drop her own game on the Android market. Or, the grandmothers who own iPads - I don't think they've been clamoring to develop some bomb ass apps, if only they didn't have to learn that pesky Obj C. Not saying that all grandmothers or five year olds c…

I suspect that was a reference to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/technology/12google.html

"User testing has been done mainly in schools with groups that included sixth graders, high school girls, nursing students and university undergraduates who are not computer science majors."

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#85

Post by illumin8 »

slantyyz wrote: post #4

The thing that makes my iPad great is its user experience, not its features. The fact that the app ecosystem is huge, has plenty of quality titles. I don't have to spend any time building apps to satisfy my needs, nor spend hours figuring out how it works. Yes, I could buy four of these devices for the price I spent on an iPad, but if they don't provide user experience parity to an iPad, how can it be considered a "r…

- 7" LCD screen of questionable quality vs. 10" IPS LCD screen. Article even says "It’s not a very bright screen, like the iPad." - It’s a resistive screen - No multitouch... "It simply won’t be as responsive as an iPad." - Slow CPU - "It’s not a blazing fast CPU. The specs haven’t been published, but I suspect this is in the 400-600MHz range." - Limited software - is ANY Android developer going to write software that supports the custom resolution of an unsupported 7" tablet? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

This might sell a few hundred copies to hackers and other people that like rooting their devices. It will be 0.000000001% of the total tablet market, while iPad sells 2 million per month.

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#86

Post by illumin8 »

someone_here wrote: post #22
bradleyland wrote: post #19

Ok, so supposedly this is a "real competitor" for the iPad, but the author lists the following downsides: 1) It’s a resistive screen. 2) It’s not a very bright screen, like the iPad. 3) It’s not a blazing fast CPU. 4) It’s limited for video. 5) It will be heavier than most eInk devices. 6) There’s no 3G, it’s WiFi-only. Here's why these matter. 1) There is a very good reason no one uses resistive touch for devices in…

With regard to point 1, my N900 has a resistive screen, and it feels almost exactly like an iphone (except I can use a stylus to click on tiny links on web pages instead of having to zoom).

You're crazy. I've used an N900 and it is nothing like an iPhone. Responsiveness is terrible- clicks sometimes take 2 or 3 attempts to register, and even when they do register the software takes half a second to respond, so you end up with this awkward use that goes something like "did I click it? I think I clicked it, let me click it again."

The iPhone is instantly responsive to any touch, and when you get used to using a multi-touch device, you really can't go back to using a resistive screen. I felt like it was 1995 and I was using an original Palm Pilot.

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#87

Post by mattmaroon »

masklinn wrote: post #78
mattmaroon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neilsen tested only speed. It's eyestrain that bothers me and is why ebook readers typically use e-ink.

> Neilsen tested only speed. Neilsen tested only speed if you read only the first half of the results. You might want to read the next one as well. It's called "User Satisfaction".

He doesn't say how long he asked people to read for. My suspicion is that the longer the timeframe, the more results between print and monitor (and Kindle and iPad) will diverge. You don't get eyestrain from even light reading on a monitor.

Also, satisfaction can mean a number of things, and he didn't define it, as evidenced by comments about weight. A lot of people could have had higher reading satisfaction on an iPad because it's an iPad.

Neilsen's results have no bearing one way or the other on my original statement, which is that people don't buy iPads to read books.

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#88

Post by lena »

axod wrote: post #66
theli0nheart wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the onus on me to prove it is one way or another? The information is available online. Do you really think people walk into Best Buys before they do their research? Perhaps if money is no object. But for most people, it is, and therefore research is pretty imperative.

Don't assume everyone is like you. I do most of my 'research' by browsing in shops. I often go into places like Best Buys, Frys, looking for 'stuff I probably want'. Also most people have credit cards. Most people often don't worry about money when purchasing things. They worry later when they're in debt. The threshold is different for everyone, but I would say that $200 is below the threshold it makes sense to bothe…

Totally agreed. When I was shopping for a netbook I often saw people in stores who wanted a netbook, asked the store employee what they should buy, and then bought one. The same goes for camera's. Why should this be different for tablets?

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#89

Post by CamperBob »

jarek wrote: post #83
jacobolus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence that the brightness of a fully-on iPad screen “hurts eyes”? * * * The human visual system adapts to the level of illumination it is looking at, so the times when eyes “hurt” are basically only when going from being dark-adapted to suddenly looking at something bright: for example, going from a darkened movie theater out into a sunny day. If you turn an iPad on in a completely darkened room, i…

> The human visual system adapts to the level of illumination it is looking at Anecdotally false. On really bright summer days (and on sunny days in the winter with a lot of snow), outdoors are too bright for my visual system. I have to squint or my eyes will hurt, no matter how long I stay outside to adapt. Anecdotally this is true for at least some of the people I know as well.

You're using them wrong. Just get a case^Wpair of $30 sunglasses.

Re: Out Of Nowhere, The iPad Has A Real Competitor

#90

Post by rbreve »

mattmaroon wrote: post #15
rbanffy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a competitor even if it addresses a subset of the iPad functionality. This one has e-book reading, something many people buy the iPad for. Different people weight different features differently (sory - had to do it) and this thingie may end up with a better value than an iPad for a lot of people. Me included, BTW. I could buy one of these and a Nook for less than what an iPad costs. For me, it's a winner. It's a…

Do you really think people buy the iPad for reading ebooks? I find it to be not significantly better than reading on a monitor. The iPad is great for some things for sure (Plants vs Zombies being first and foremost in my experience) but I think if I wanted to read books I'd get a Kindle or some eink device.

I also have an iPad and read books on it
Post reply on HN