Does a netbook running an Atom processor and Windows count as a PC? Commonly the answer seems to be yes.

Does a netbook running an Atom processor and Linux count as a PC? Seems yes here too.

What about a netbook running an Atom processor and ChromeOS? Starting to get shaky a little, but sure, I bet the market will count these.

Now what about a netbook running an ARM processor and ChromeOS? Yes? Well, then why not count the iPad, that also runs an ARM processor and a specialized OS. No? Then why did the one with an Atom count?

This is where it starts to get confusing. Does a generic general purpose CPU, bundled with an OS capable of browsing the web count as a PC? Or does it have to be an x86 processor? If it's x86 only, when did that become the requirement? PowerPC machines with MacOS used to count as PCs. Or is it the physical keyboard that is the defining PC feature? Does a touchscreen somehow invalidate it being a PC, even though PCs have offered touchscreens as an interface since the 80s?

Counting the iPad as a PC turns into a murky argument either way, and in either case really doesn't change much. At the end of the day, Apple is selling a ton of them, and making a nice bit of profit from their sales. And due to this success, a number of developers have their own success selling software for the iPad platform. PC or not, it's doing well.

The importance of marketshare is generally for investors, whether it be through the stock market or developers investing in the platform. Both these groups should know that Apple is currently dominating the US market overall. To exclude the iPad is disingenuous at best.

I suspect we're also going to see the iPad become more functionally equivalent to a typical portable computer as well. They've already added printing - how many people thought that would be coming to iOS any time soon?

A number of other executive-types are lashing back at Steve Jobs today for his comments last night. The issue seems to be pretty clear. These guys just don't get it.

Andy Rubin is totally out to lunch if he thinks being able to download and compile Android means it's an open OS. Tell that one to consumers who want to simply uninstall some crapware their carrier put on their phone. The TweetDeck CEO says his developers haven't had a hard time at all with Android. Of course not, because if you close your eyes and ignore the inconsistent landscape and fragmentation out there you won't have a problem at all.

But just look at the devices, even from one manufacturer to see all the issues. Different screen resolutions, different aspect ratios, different screen sizes, completely different colour reproduction, different input methods, different OS versions, different set of stock software, different UI skins, different "other" hardware specs, inability of end-users to update OS, it's just inconsistent and fragmented.

If open means being able to download and compile the OS, then "open" will fail every time in the consumer space as history tells us.

The situation is most relevant to consumers and developers and when it all boils down, it is in fact most similar to what Steve mentioned, fragmented versus integrated, than it is to some ideological open/closed argument.

Yes -- the processor means nothing for the purposes of deciding whether a device is a PC or not.


Yes -- the brand of OS also means nothing in this discussion.


No, and it's shaky at all. ChromeOS is not an operating system in the traditional sense that lets users install any application they want, play any media they want, get direct access to the hardware, etc. It's a stripped-down OS; a thin internet client that will run some apps but is not a general-purpose OS.


Still no, see above about processors.



It didn't. Your argument doesn't follow because it relies on the assumption that ChromeOS is also a general-purpose operating system. It's not. If I were king of the world, I wouldn't count any ChromeOS or WebOS device in the computer sales metrics. They're entirely different animals -- computers only in the same way my smartphone is a computer.



Can I build and install any application I want to on this generic OS, getting direct hardware access, having rights to play whatever media I want on it? If so, I think it's a PC, regardless of what processor it has, whether it has a touchscreen, etc.


Agreed. So there's no need for anyone to artificially inflate Apple's brisk sales of PCs with bogus arguments.

I don't know about Chrome OS, since that's vapor at this time (why even bother with this?), but you can absolutely do all the things you just mentioned with an iPad. Both with and without jailbreaking in fact.

It's not as general purpose as a desktop, but then a notebook isn't either and a netbook even less so. Consumers and business are using iPad to replace, or rather use instead of, other computers for many tasks. That's important to financial investors and developers. Leaving that product off the count doesn't tell the whole story.

I think the only metric being used by the research groups and many observers is, does the product run an OS that can also be installed on any desktop. The iPad is the odd man out in this case, because even though iOS finds its core in Mac OS, they're different and you can't buy iOS in a box to install elsewhere.

The argument about developing software that touches hardware, etc. is just a smokescreen and I don't think anyone else considers it. It might be a better definition, but it's not the one being used now. And as mentioned, this one would allow inclusion of the iPad.

In the end, an investor has to be smarter than the research groups and look beyond a single chart. The proof is in the financial results and here Apple is most definitely dominating, no matter how you look at it.

Prior to the iPad, analysts probably lumped "tablet" sales in with generic PCs because, for the most part, they very much were generic PCs, like my old IBM X41 Tablet, which was just a regular subnotebook with a funky swiveling screen and a stylus.

Post iPad, and particularly with the attack of the clones coming soon, I expect analysts will treat "tablets" as a fully distinct category, to perhaps be defined as "too big to fit in your pocket, and lacking a conventional keyboard." On a definition like that, convertible Windows laptop/tablets would be "notebooks" while the rush of new iPad clones (and oddball gadgets like the Modbook) will be "tablets".

Categories aside, you do have to hand it to Apple for selling so many iPads. I'm still in the camp of "it doesn't do anything I can't already do just fine with what I have." Between my smartphone and my Kindle, I've got all of the iPad's bases covered. However, if my 91-year-old grandmother, who has never used a computer before in her life, came to me tomorrow and said "that's it, get me on the Internet", I'd have no hesitation in getting her an iPad.

ChromeOS would satisfy your build and install application piece, as you can build an HTML 5 based application and install it. Can it run any application? No, but neither can any other OS, they run what the OS can support. The other question here is how you define an application. Does a pile of HTML and Javascript code count? Some say it does, others do not. I'm not sure about direct hardware access, but here it also depends on your definition. ChromeOS will support WebGL, so the HTML5 apps will have GPU access, similar to Direct3D apps on Windows. Certain desktop OSes counted in the PC market also deny direct access. Media wise, ChromeOS will also allow local or remote playback of your content, or others. Thats why I said it's shaky, as even the definition on the desktop/laptop side is shifting a bit.

Bruno, I brought ChromeOS up, as it's potentially the one that will blur the PC/not a PC argument even more, since it can be on an x86 system/netbook, an ARM netbook, or even the iPad and other tablet form factor devices. I'm sure in any case, the analysts will be squabbling about this for a while, either when it involves the iPad running iOS, or an ARM netbook offering either Android or ChromeOS.

Agreed, which is why I took issue with your characterization of the idea that it was "incorrect" to not count iPads as PC sales for Apple. There's room for debate, and no matter where that debate goes, Apple is killing.

Is anyone shocked that the iPad is killing it? I had no doubt this thing would be selling faster than they can make it. Now the Wii- that shocked me- but the iPad, no so much.

I think it's fair to describe me as shocked that it's been this successful. Though I did hedge my bet by saying that it'd catch on with newbies and the less computer-savvy, with sales that strong, they're clearly selling to folks who already have and use a laptop on a regular basis, not just grandmas who want to watch some videos and view pictures of the grandkids. I still don't get why, but it is what it is, and I'll grudgingly accept Apple's success with this device as I root against it.

The people I know that use it use it as:

A living room PC, where you don't want a mouse and keyboard.
A travel PC, for convenience in the car/train/plane

I could easily predict Wii would be a success. I find it innovative and just pure and simple fun in a way no other videogame console could be at the time. And, extremely attractive for "casual gamers" or non-hard core, traditional gamers. Nintendo did manage to attract a very new market of (potential) gamers. I know literally tens of people who just didn't play videogames or owned consoles until they used the Wii once and decided to get theirs, and I think this happened to a large part of current Wii market.

I think that to a large part of its market - not all, of course -, the iPad was similar to (even though I don't consider this an exact parallel) the Wii: a new way to access content much more immediate and effective (to them, of course).

Personally, while I got into the Wii concept quite immediately and bought it and still happily use it, I could not get into the iPod idea.
I've used it for few days, I loved the first 20 minutes, I liked if for a day, then I started to find it progressively less and less interesting, to the point I gave it back to the friend who lent it to me without wanting to buy one; now I would just not know what to do with one, other than look at how sleek it looks, and I'm much happier in using a netbook whenever I need something smaller than a laptop (travelling, living room, kitchen, beach, or whatever).

A real multipurpose OS does not rely on a defined, limited set of languages. A real multipurpose OS presents system calls that can be accessed in a generic manner.

Is this a fine line? Yeah. But WebOS (and, I guess, ChromeOS — I haven't really looked at it) really is more of a dedicated application with very advanced configuration files.

If I can ever get a hold of an iPhone (2 week online wait, hard to get at a store), I'm going to be trying an ipad-specific data plan with one. Should be interesting. Will update with results. Conceivably this would also allow anyone with an iPad to swap sims at will to either device.

It's been done before, but I really want to confirm it for Canada - on multiple carriers no less.

I have one on order via the online store now - 2 weeks until it ships.

But I've just called a local store and they said they have stock of both models... So I'm actually just waiting on a neighbor to come with me to see if I get there before they sell out. My car is still in need of repairs, otherwise I wouldn't be writing the tail end of this message right now.

Are you wanting to make calls on it ? The iPad specific SIMs from O2 in the UK are very definitely not enabled for voice calls if you swap them to another device.

VOIP. I can't see the sense in a voice plan in this day and age. I'm doing an iPad sim because none of the carriers here will offer a data-only plan to a customer for use in a phone, even if you bring your own.

I also had to wait in line for about an hour and thirty minutes at Bell store just to get the bloody card. Two employees, each spent over an hour with their respective customers just to sell them one phone and a plan each. WTF! No wonder rates in Canada are among the highest in the world - most consumers just have no clue though. And apparently nowhere else to be.

I do have a separate voice "pay as you go" sim from a different provider I can use in the iPhone any time I want.

My plan is to connect voip.ms, Google Voice and a few other services together into one frankenstein data-based voice service. Which I may need some help with and will likely post about in the voip thread I started a while back.

That will be interesting...

When I run Skype in the background on my iPhone 4 it halves battery life and that is when connected to wifi.

I use very (very) little voice at all, so I don't think that's going to be a concern for me. What I hope to do is more mobile messaging and more importantly, allow online access to the interesting apps that need it. With GV I can also have voice mails transcribed, so if I know I don't wan to "talk" on the phone one afternoon I can just shuttle everything to VM.

Oh, forgot to mention in the last email. I did pick up an iPhone 4, subsequently canceling my online order - it would have only been delivered around November 17

I'm not sure how people are getting great usage out of the battery. AionExchange will drain around 3% of the battery in 5 mins of use. iBooks burns more than 10% per hour. A simple hop from PHX to MRY (less than 1.5 hours above 10k feet) drained more than 20% and that was with WiFi turned off. Netflix isn't too bad though, around 15% of the battery used per movie.

Maybe it is just my iPad, but I need to charge it all the time.

Sounds a bit odd, my iPad easily exceeds Apples battery life claims. Battery life just isn't an issue for me, I charge it about twice a week, sometimes less. I use it every day.

Even streaming video over wifi for an hour uses less than 10%.

Odd. It shouldn't burn through the battery that fast especially not with something like iBooks.

My iPad was charged overnight, took it off charge at 9am. It is now 3:30pm and the charge is down to 92%.

Today I have:

- used the app store to download and install 12 updates
- used Instapaper for 20 minutes to read some stuff
- done 5 minutes of web browsing
- watched 45 minutes of wifi streamed video using Air Player

After doing the first four items and before watching the video the battery was still at 100%.

That is a fairly typical performance for my iPad's battery life.

Edit:

This is a 3G iPad by the way, so it was also connected to a middling-flaky 3G signal at the same time as doing the above.

For reading books, as on an iPhone, I'd expect the pad to burn more juice if...
The backlight is on full.
It's not in airplane mode.
and I don't know what else.

It will burn more power just due to the increased screen size and lighting requirements, but not a larger percentage of overall capacity. This is due to the big difference in batteries. The iPhone 4 has a 1,420mAh battery powering a screen with 614,400 pixels while the iPad has a ~6,613mAh battery and 786,432 pixels. Ignoring backlighting, the iPad has a much better power capacity to pixel ratio then the iPhone 4. Even with backlighting factored in, the iPad comes out ahead due to that massive battery.

OMFG. Sell your Adobe and RIM stock quick if you still have any left. CEOs of both companies completely out to lunch and demonstrate quite vocally how they're not in touch with reality, the market and are already being proven wrong about their visions of the future.

I wonder if anyone at Apple has already been crunching the numbers to see if it makes any sense to acquire Adobe...

Well, regardless of the statements made here, I would hope that nobody here would be buying stock in RIM. They're not on an upward trend, and it's pretty clear that company isn't being run well.

As for Adobe...well...uh...they have Photoshop!

iPad is now at OS 4.2 with multi-tasking. And all (capable) iOS devices now have "FInd my...." service available for free without a MobileMe account - just use your AppleID. Sweet, and about time.

My battery life seems to be doing better. During the flight yesterday (PHX - BWI), I was using iBooks the entire time except for when I watched two TV episodes (like 1.5 hours of video). When I got to the hotel, I noticed the iPad still had 73% battery life left. I can deal with that.

I hate how they changed the rotation switch to a mute button though. To me, it makes no sense. Now the only way to get to the rotation lock is to go to the multitask toolbar, scroll over and hit it. I never use mute on the thing, but rotation lock was used all the time. Now there are two ways to mute the iPad literally right next to each other, but only one ridiculously unintuitive way to lock the screen rotation.

I agree that the lock switch should have been left as it was.

However it is incorrect to say that the mute switch and holding down the volume rocker do the same thing, they don't.

The mute switch mutes notifications and things like that. It will not for example mute music playback. Holding down the volume rocker mutes everything (or at least I think it does, I'm not 100% sure that it mutes notifications).

Of course 99% of users will never realise that or understand the differentiation between the two functions. All a bit of a mess really.

And on the iPhone is a slightly more complex situation, as of course alarms can never be muted (which is actually a good thing from my point of view). I was surprised that Apple didn't implement the rocker hold function on the phone as well, it would be handy.

I was also surprised that they didn't include the Clock app on the iPad, very odd.

Looks like 4.3 may resolve switchgate. The first beta of 4.3 has a setting labeled "Use side switch to" with "Lock rotation" and "Mute" as the two options.

And interestingly, there is a "multitasking gestures" option. Somehow, 4 and 5 finger gestures can be used to switch apps, go back to the home screen, or open the multitasking panel. Rumors are already flying that iPad 2 may go buttonless, like the Android 3.0 tablets shown at CES.

*edit*
Engadget now has a video showing the new gestures. They look pretty reasonable, and should make it even quicker to switch between apps.

Completely buttonless, IMO, would be a hyper-dumb move and very much unlike Apple for this type of device and UI.

No gesture is as intuitive as a button to jump back to the home screen. Anyone can pick up an iPad and without any outside instruction learn that button takes them to the home screen. With only a gesture, they may be there for two days or two years without ever figuring it out.