Mac OS X

iPhone On Steroids

Posted by on Jan 25, 2010 | 15 Comments

iphoneThere have been a lot of people wondering what the point is with the iPad. Seriously, some have even pointed out that the iPad is basically an iPhone on Steroids, to a degree.

To point out how true this actually is, could almost be funny. The reality is that it’s actually a step backwards in many degrees. It does leave out options like making calls, but it is light years better than thing provided by the Amazon Kindle.

Despite the age of the article linked above, it is interesting that there are insights linked to it that definitely came true. iPhone on steroids indeed.

  • Joseph Nusair

    Interesting take but TOTAL BS that it is “better than a kindle”. I’ll probably purchase an iPad (then maybe regift it) But .. the kindle is light years ahead of what it is DESIGNED to do. READ BOOKS.

    Lets just get one thing straight, without supporting eInk on your device you CANT call yourself an eReader, period.

  • Randy Allen

    “…light years better than thing provided by the Amazon Kindle.” Spoken by one that has actually used a Kindle? I think not. You may be one of those individuals that can sit down and read for several hours on a backlit display without wanting to rip your eyes out, but most of us are not. That is not the case with a Kindle, and that is why the iPad isn’t a Kindle killer. Plus the fact that it is backed by the thousands of books available on Amazon, the largest retailer on the Internet.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7QGECQQRFOY5CX5KCV4AJBMXJE Larry Thomason

    To watch the NFL, you can also pay for NFL Game Pass https://gamepass.nfl.com/nflgp/help3.jsp with a VPN provided ISP in Europe. It will cost you about $350 (including VPN service) for the season while the NFL game pass through Direct TV is $279.

    Also, while this defeats the purpose a little bit, you might be able to pay one of your friends to hook up a slingbox to a 2nd cable box. This would cost you like $279 for a slingbox, plus whatever you pay your friend.

  • ciccio70

    Netflix is also an option for streaming kid’s shows.

    • http://chris.pirillo.com/ Chris Pirillo

      That’ll come in very handy when I have kids!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AETAOWBMNWGQOI6XC2WAJEYVSY JohnF

      this is AWESOME.

  • http://techtt.hassantt.com Hassan Voyeau

    I agree with you that it’s missing the social network.

  • http://detested.wordpress.com/ Archaeme

    Patience, since everything big & successful now always started small.

  • http://technologyquestions.com/blog LPH

    +1 is a failure for a few reasons: (1) degrades website performance, (2) Only select people can push the button (app users cannot, user names not meeting community standards cannot), (3) only select sites are going to get pushed (unless someone asks friends, family, neighbors, buys it, etc)….

    Two blog postings:

    http://www.technologyquestions.com/2011/06/01/gfail-sorry-but-i-cannot-use-1-because-i-dont-meet-community-standards/

    http://www.technologyquestions.com/2011/06/07/google-1-drags-website-performance/

  • http://technologyquestions.com/blog LPH

    I agree that people rushed to put the button on their site out of fear that they would lose position on SERPs.

  • http://www.blackwaterops.com Brandon Wirtz

    The Google +1 to Facebook Like Ratio isn’t fair you put the article link on your FB page and people “like” it so the ratios aren’t going to be the same.

    Also it is easy to see who +1′ed articles, but only if those people are your friends. I like this better, since there is some privacy to what I like.

    Lastly the advantage of +1 is that when I Google something, things my friends +1′ed show at the top of results. Which is a useful feature.

  • http://www.biggerpockets.com Joshua Dorkin

    We’ve had it installed since launch and have had less than a handful of +1s vs hundreds of Tweets and Likes in the same time span. I’m guessing it’ll disappear in the months to come . . .

  • uberRegenbogen

    The geek in me takes exception to equating fragmentation with disorganisation. To the OS (specifically the filesystem driver) the blocks of a file are always organised; it knows exactly where it all is—no matter how scattered. Fragmentation is not an unsound condition; it is merely sub-optimal per mechanical concerns. Rectifying it is never actually required—merely desirable in certain situations (particularly in OSes that make no effort to mitigate it).

  • http://twitter.com/torroella88 Carlos Torroella

    Do we need to use defragmenting thing in linux?

  • http://twitter.com/MOSHONAS Zack Moshonas

    iDefrag, Its an amazing piece of software!