ext_36528 ([identity profile] sleigh.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] sleigh 2010-01-28 01:28 pm (UTC)

There are some valid points in the article. In musing more on this, I see the iPad as a "computer for people who don't really need a computer" -- for the (substantial) portion of the population who use their computer to browse the web, check their e-mail, look at their digital pictures, listen to their music or watch a video, and maybe play a couple games. And, oh yeah, in addition the iPad will give you e-books.

If you don't use your computer to do heavy-lifting, capital-W Work -- to create novels, websites, or corporate presentations, to edit and process professional video or photography, to program, debug, and compile software -- then the iPad is potentially your next computer. I suspect that's a significant percentage of the larger set of 'all computer users.'

I also suspect that for a significant percentage of Kindle users and potential Kindle users, the iPad is the better choice -- for those who don't buy a hundred books a year, but only two or three now and again. The iPad is an e-book reader with a significant catalog (five of the six Big Sisters of publishing have already signed on; Random House being the only holdout so far), melded with all the computer they need. Why buy a Kindle when for a couple hundred bucks more you get everything else you need in one (very attractive) package?

It may not kill the Kindle, but I would argue that it sure as hell is going to cripple it.

For you, though, the Kindle may still be the best choice: better battery life (it doesn't have to light up a screen), it weighs less, and you don't want/need a device to do the other tasks that the iPad could do.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting