greenmedic88 said:
You seem to be pretty misinformed here on a number of points. First, the Flash thing since that's usually the first complaint. The iPad runs Flash. Safari for iOS does not. For anyone who this is a legitimate issue, they are using Puffin browser. Personally, the number of times I find myself using Puffin (almost never other than to see if a site is Flash dependent) demonstrates the shrinking relevancy of the supposed biggest fault of the iPad. The problem with Android tablets is that there is no set standard for resolutions among the dozens of manufacturers meaning it's a bit of a pain to code apps for them that are optimized to use the native resolution of your tablet. So that whole non-standard, customization benefit (which only benefits those who bother to customize) cuts both ways. The whole "walled garden" approach of the iOS ecosystem, while flying contrary to a preferable open system in which nearly everything could be run directly through a browser, effectively eliminates apps that don't display or run properly. Apps that don't either disappear quickly after being called out by user reviews, or are patched. Better approach? Totally debatable, but I've yet to encounter a current app I wanted to run that didn't run optimally on the iPad 3. Multi-tasking hasn't been absent on iOS since iOS 3.0. I don't know if you're confused, or if I am here. A double tap on the Home button pulls up all apps currently running on the iPad allowing a quick touch on the app the user wishes to resume work on. Apps that are continually running continue to run in the background until the user switches back. If anything, my complaint would be that the user has to unintuitively close any background apps or the list of background running apps will grow to comedic proportions while eating memory, computing cycles and battery power. Cost-wise, the only thing Apple eliminated was the cheap device segment, which was the segment Steve Jobs had decreed Apple would never be a part of, hence no $250-300 netbooks back when they were all the rage circa 2008-2009. Instead, Apple released the MB Air (to the familiar trumpets of good god that's too expensive by detractors), which effectively spawned the entire ultrabook segment, none of which are cheap when comparably configured. The "iPads are too expensive" claim ignores the existence of top end Android tablets, which not coincidentally tend to be the highest rated devices. They don't stop at $300, 400 or even $500. Comparable 10" tablets like the Galaxy Tab 10 or the Sony Tablet S are about $600. The iPad 2 is $399. And while I'm not participating in any betting pools on this, there are odds that Apple releases a 7" iPad that would likely be priced at $299, possibly even less. It would be a near zero profit device (much like the Kindle Fire), but would serve as a strategic device to both satisfy consumer demand for a smaller and cheaper (more accessible) iPad, eliminating cost as the primary reason to shop elsewhere and opening up the iOS market to lower budgets. Naturally, Android tablet makers would rather not see this happen. |
I am not misinformed
and i am too lazy to explain.
