Apple

[Pre]

I feel like they whatever little chip they put in the phone to enable 3G shouldn't cost $130...

That's how every upgrade ever works.  A larger flash drive should cost hundreds more. 
Xbox 360 hard drives shouldn't cost a shit-ton.  Some comment about car moon roofs.

[Weebs]

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/amazon-sdk-hints-that-kindle-store-coming-to-apple-tablet.ars

Are those iPad + 3G prices just to buy the device with the capability to use 3G, as well as the monthly costs of the actual service?  I feel like they whatever little chip they put in the phone to enable 3G shouldn't cost $130...

That's not how companies price these things, you jackass.

The prices in the pic RV linked are for the devices, without service. They announced some sort of data plan with AT&T, but the 3G iPads apparently will come unlocked, so I don't think you'll be handcuffed to their shitty network.

As it stands, the 16GB 3G iPad only costs $30 more than an unsubsidized 16GB iPhone 3GS (without a contract).

If they're actually unlocked, that's a little different.  But if you're stuck with AT&T, it's stupid to charge $130 extra just for the device when you're then going to have to pay another monthly fee.  I mean $30 isn't a terrible price for unlimited data, but you'd think if you're already paying a monthly fee, they'll give you some kind of discount on the actual purchase, like when you get a contract with an iPhone. Not to mention, I'm sure AT&T will do something to limit 3G use like they do with the iPhone, not letting you go to YouTube or other things like that unless you're on WiFi.

[BH]

If they're actually unlocked, that's a little different.  But if you're stuck with AT&T, it's stupid to charge $130 extra just for the device when you're then going to have to pay another monthly fee.  I mean $30 isn't a terrible price for unlimited data, but you'd think if you're already paying a monthly fee, they'll give you some kind of discount on the actual purchase, like when you get a contract with an iPhone. Not to mention, I'm sure AT&T will do something to limit 3G use like they do with the iPhone, not letting you go to YouTube or other things like that unless you're on WiFi.

I've never been to a site and not been able to access it on my iphone.
They have a dedicated youtube app, that you don't need wifi to access.

[Eli]

Not to mention, I'm sure AT&T will do something to limit 3G use like they do with the iPhone, not letting you go to YouTube or other things like that unless you're on WiFi.

BH just commented on this, but I'd also like to add that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

If they're actually unlocked, that's a little different.

They are.

But if you're stuck with AT&T...

You're not.

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/01/27/ipad-will-ship-with-802-11n-wi-fi-3g-optional/

What's also interesting is that the 3G model will run on the the UTMS/HSDPA 800, 1900, and 2100 MHz band with GSM/Edge running on the 850, 900, 1800 and 1900 MHz bands. This means that it will run on just about any provider out there. And the SIM comes completely unlocked, so even if you don't want in on Apples $14.99 for 250mb or $29.99 unlimited pay-as-you-go plan with AT&T, you can find your own 3G provider. Don't forget, though, that you'll be waiting for an extra month, as the 3G models are releasing in 90 days, not the 60 days expected for the Wi-Fi versions.

[Weebs]

Not to mention, I'm sure AT&T will do something to limit 3G use like they do with the iPhone, not letting you go to YouTube or other things like that unless you're on WiFi.

BH just commented on this, but I'd also like to add that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Apparently it applies to HD videos on YouTube, as well as Skype and some other VOIP apps.  I'm not sure about any other restrictions, but AT&T is unhappy with the data usage.

[BH]

Not to mention, I'm sure AT&T will do something to limit 3G use like they do with the iPhone, not letting you go to YouTube or other things like that unless you're on WiFi.

BH just commented on this, but I'd also like to add that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Apparently it applies to HD videos on YouTube, as well as Skype and some other VOIP apps.  I'm not sure about any other restrictions, but AT&T is unhappy with the data usage.

I bought my iphone specifically so I could use skype and voip. I was crushed that I had to use the actual phone instead of the internet. 

iPhone users use 10x more data than average smartphone users. Of course ATT wouldn't be happy with that. The reason the network is unstable and has issues is in large part due to this.

[Yeti]

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/amazon-sdk-hints-that-kindle-store-coming-to-apple-tablet.ars

Are those iPad + 3G prices just to buy the device with the capability to use 3G, as well as the monthly costs of the actual service?  I feel like they whatever little chip they put in the phone to enable 3G shouldn't cost $130...

That's not how companies price these things, you jackass.

The prices in the pic RV linked are for the devices, without service. They announced some sort of data plan with AT&T, but the 3G iPads apparently will come unlocked, so I don't think you'll be handcuffed to their shitty network.

As it stands, the 16GB 3G iPad only costs $30 more than an unsubsidized 16GB iPhone 3GS (without a contract).

You may have answered this but I'm too busy and lazy to look. If you have the AT&T 3G plan with your non-iPhone, can you just put this on that? Or is this different?

[fiveouts]

Its also AT&T's choice to limit the SlingBox to wifi only.  You can only use 3G with that app if you jailbreak your phone. 

[PenFoe]

Pen assures me this thing is no threat to the Kindle and its undisclosed sales figures.

Because no one who'd be willing to spend $259 (or $489 for the larger Kindle DX) for a device devoted strictly to reading digital books would be willing to to spend $240 more (or $10 more, for that matter) for a much better device in a similar form factor that would, among other things, also allow them to watch video and offers capabilities more akin to a netbook.

Pretty gross mischaracterization of the facts.

Let's go to the tape...

Fork: "Also, [iPad] will effectively kill Kindle."
Pen: "[ I]'m pretty sure Fork is wrong about that"
Pen: "I don't have any specific information, but it seems wrong"

Tank: "Kindle looks like shit in the company of the iPad"
Tank: "It's not going to necessarily kill the Kindle outright, but it won't make life easier for it"
Pen: "$500 seems like a lot for an electric book"

"[T]his thing is a good bit bigger than a kindle, no? [W]hy not just read books on your iPhone? I mean...if the iPhone isn't a Kindle killer, why would the iPad [be one]?"

Assured?

Don't call it a Kindle killer. Books on iPad will probably be more expensive than Kindle's titles, at least at first. And there's nothing about the iPad's screen that will make it better for reading than, say, a laptop. But having a dedicated iBooks store? That's good for everybody, including iPhone and iPod touch users.

[ChuckD]

Pen assures me this thing is no threat to the Kindle and its undisclosed sales figures.

Because no one who'd be willing to spend $259 (or $489 for the larger Kindle DX) for a device devoted strictly to reading digital books would be willing to to spend $240 more (or $10 more, for that matter) for a much better device in a similar form factor that would, among other things, also allow them to watch video and offers capabilities more akin to a netbook.

The benefit of the Kindle is that it doesn't destroy your eyes. If you're looking strictly for an e-reader, then the iPad isn't a better device. It's more powerful and more useful in general, but it's not really a better e-reader.

[BH]

Chuck has never been more right. That's why the old color screen iPods changed to the slick black and white screen ones you see today.
White on black. Catch the future.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Assured?

Don't call it a Kindle killer. Books on iPad will probably be more expensive than Kindle's titles, at least at first. And there's nothing about the iPad's screen that will make it better for reading than, say, a laptop. But having a dedicated iBooks store? That's good for everybody, including iPhone and iPod touch users.

So... Digital books bought through iTunes will probably cost more than books bought through Amazon.com? Which, come to think of it, you'll be able to buy for your iPad anyways, via the Kindle app? (Oh, and reading on the iPad will be no better than reading on a laptop? And who would ever do a thing like that?)

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

The benefit of the Kindle is that it doesn't destroy your eyes. If you're looking strictly for an e-reader, then the iPad isn't a better device. It's more powerful and more useful in general, but it's not really a better e-reader.

Honestly, I think the notion that backlit displays are inherently harder on the eyes than reflected light is overblown. Whether light is reflected or not, it's still just photons being directed at my retina. Yeah, if the backlight is considerably brighter than the ambient, that can get harsh. But even then I can easily replicate the relatively low-contrast ratio of a Kindle display on my laptop just by ratcheting down the brightness 10 steps.

Perhaps a more reasonable knock against backlighting is the flicker. Florescent backlighting has the same constant high-frequency flicker as all florescent lighting, and I gather LED backlighting (as found in the iPad) uses rapid flickering to attenuate brightness.

But neither even begin to approach the eye-gouging associated with low-refresh-rate CRTs of yesteryear. I feel like you're more liable to suffer eye strain these days from simply staring at the same object 10 inches from your face for hours at a time than from anything inherent to the screen itself.

That said, even granting that it might be better for its dedicated purpose, the Kindle is still effectively the hardware word processor to the iPad's personal computer...



Word processing typewriters apparently remain well suited enough for dedicated niche tasks that there's still something of a market for them. A negligibly small market, but a market nonetheless. But for most tasks, the personal computer almost immediately proved good enough to supplant them.

Whatever the market for e-readers might be (and Amazon has never, as far as I'm aware, released official Kindle sales figures), there's no way it approaches the relatively broader appeal of a general purpose device like. And, given current prices for these things ($259-$490 for a Kindle, $259 for a Nook, $199-$299 for a Sony Reader), I think a more general purpose device that is a good enough e-reader substitute has a great shot at dominating its single-purpose cousins on their turf.

We're already talking $200-$300 down for a single purpose device. For $200 more initial investment (plus maybe the price of a slight increase in eye strain) you get a computer to go with it: A general purpose device that (whenever you're through reading Norman Mailer's* latest clap-trap about his waning libido) will let you watch a movie, surf the web, play a game, write an email, watch a live feed of a Cubs game... or whatever other possibilities come down the pike as the App Store continues to grow.

That's a trade-off I think more people looking at these choices than not would be willing to make.

This about covers it...

The Kindle is too expensive for a single-purpose device.

Amazon really has two roads it can choose now. One would be to completely redo the Kindle, adding more functionality, speeding it up, and integrating touch, color, a Web browser and a new user interface.

The second option would be to strip the device to its bare bones and drop the price as much as possible. A lot of people will have a hard time justifying $500 for the lowest entry-level iPad and would probably choose a $100 Kindle if they were hoping to find a new device to replace their paper-book reading.

One more thing ...

Kindle's store and its reading application for the iPhone are both excellent, simple experiences for purchasing and consuming books. Amazon understands this market better than anyone and could easily sell more books on the iPad than Apple could through its new iTunes bookstore. Amazon also offers an excellent recommendation system, and I can envision some users opting for the Kindle application on their fancy new iPads.

And I don't find the arguments on the other side terribly convincing.

*Or maybe the latest clap-trap from someone who's not dead.

[Gil Gunderson]

The benefit of the Kindle is that it doesn't destroy your eyes. If you're looking strictly for an e-reader, then the iPad isn't a better device. It's more powerful and more useful in general, but it's not really a better e-reader.

Honestly, I think the notion that backlit displays are inherently harder on the eyes than reflected light is overblown. Whether light is reflected or not, it's still just photons being directed at my retina. Yeah, if the backlight is considerably brighter than the ambient, that can get harsh. But even then I can easily replicate the relatively low-contrast ratio of a Kindle display on my laptop just by ratcheting down the brightness 10 steps.

Perhaps a more reasonable knock against backlighting is the flicker. Florescent backlighting has the same constant high-frequency flicker as all florescent lighting, and I gather LED backlighting (as found in the iPad) uses rapid flickering to attenuate brightness.

But neither even begin to approach the eye-gouging associated with low-refresh-rate CRTs of yesteryear. I feel like you're more liable to suffer eye strain these days from simply staring at the same object 10 inches from your face for hours at a time than from anything inherent to the screen itself.

That said, even granting that it might be better for its dedicated purpose, the Kindle is still effectively the hardware word processor to the iPad's personal computer...



Word processing typewriters apparently remain well suited enough for dedicated niche tasks that there's still something of a market for them. A negligibly small market, but a market nonetheless. But for most tasks, the personal computer almost immediately proved good enough to supplant them.

Whatever the market for e-readers might be (and Amazon has never, as far as I'm aware, released official Kindle sales figures), there's no way it approaches the relatively broader appeal of a general purpose device like. And, given current prices for these things ($259-$490 for a Kindle, $259 for a Nook, $199-$299 for a Sony Reader), I think a more general purpose device that is a good enough e-reader substitute has a great shot at dominating its single-purpose cousins on their turf.

We're already talking $200-$300 down for a single purpose device. For $200 more initial investment (plus maybe the price of a slight increase in eye strain) you get a computer to go with it: A general purpose device that (whenever you're through reading Norman Mailer's* latest clap-trap about his waning libido) will let you watch a movie, surf the web, play a game, write an email, watch a live feed of a Cubs game... or whatever other possibilities come down the pike as the App Store continues to grow.

That's a trade-off I think more people looking at these choices than not would be willing to make.

This about covers it...

The Kindle is too expensive for a single-purpose device.

Amazon really has two roads it can choose now. One would be to completely redo the Kindle, adding more functionality, speeding it up, and integrating touch, color, a Web browser and a new user interface.

The second option would be to strip the device to its bare bones and drop the price as much as possible. A lot of people will have a hard time justifying $500 for the lowest entry-level iPad and would probably choose a $100 Kindle if they were hoping to find a new device to replace their paper-book reading.

One more thing ...

Kindle's store and its reading application for the iPhone are both excellent, simple experiences for purchasing and consuming books. Amazon understands this market better than anyone and could easily sell more books on the iPad than Apple could through its new iTunes bookstore. Amazon also offers an excellent recommendation system, and I can envision some users opting for the Kindle application on their fancy new iPads.

And I don't find the arguments on the other side terribly convincing.

*Or maybe the latest clap-trap from someone who's not dead.

I'm intrigued by your theories and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.