btw 2 - that reminds me of an old marketing campaign for the introduction of Renault (iirc) to America; that stated their superiority because "20 million Frenchmen can't be wrong."

Again, high sales does not prove a product is good in and of itself.

Tell that to the die hard BetaMax fans.

Actually, it even goes back to the original days of the Apple ][. They couldn't get the unit to pass FCC classification due to interference from the RF modulator. So they sold it without the RF modulator, and then you could buy the RF modulator separately. If it caused interference, well, that was the user's problem...

I think the iPad, iPhone, iPod, etc are well executed. But I have always found other devices which did the same thing, for a lot less money.

That would make his point for you. The Beta design was far superior to VHS, it was just that VHS had more backing, better strategy, and better marketing.

So if Apple is like VHS.....

Most apps on the iPad work with no network connection. Dragon Dictation is an exception.

Not quite.

In 1977, there were no video display screens or CRTs available to consumers. All personal computers at the time used a separate box that could convert computer output into something a TV could display. Pre-eminent among them was the "Pixie-Verter" which came as a kit and had instructions that ended with 'don't solder this wire to that terminal, because it would violate FCC rules.' Naturally, that last connection made the Pixie-verter work.

I was at Apple at the time and we had to be very indirect about recommending how a buyer might display graphics.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1296434360.jpg

Steve Jobs, May '77 with Apple II and prospective buyers

Then Apple will prevail.

The Apple ][ did it this way. The PET had a built in display. I was more of a mainframe user at the time: PR1ME. One of my highschool buddies had a brain infection and was home for a long time. His parents picked up a PET for him. He did the first Asteroids rip-off for the PET.

Our comp department picked up 1/2 dozen Apples and I think we built one from parts. Later on we picked up a couple of IBM PCs. When I went to college, 1983, I had to go back in time with a batch type system...awful...

As far as the "Pixie-Verter", this was the RF modulator of which I was speaking.

Even though Apple is technically inferior? (that was your arguement/logic)

No, you still don't get it. BetaMax fanboys *said* beta was superior. It was not in any meaningful way superior. That's become a sort of urban legend. Just like Android fanboys will point to dual core processors or physical keyboards as "superior" when they are not relevant. Momentum, software and consumer perception control the market.

Why VHS was better than Betamax | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Then why use that as your example??

If it's both technically superior AND owns the market, there is no arguement to make.

Carry on

Let me clear up your confusion. If dual core processors and physical keyboards are considered technically superior by some, that's a lovely thing. If the market does not see an advantage, then is there really an advantage? In the BetaMax example, if you had read the article, it was a very good analogue to the current tablet marketplace.

i remember the betamax from back in the day. i preferred renting betamax videos because the picture quality was superior. i didn't have any vested emotional interest in it. as for anything else, i cannot recall there being a difference.

the one thing i hate about apple is the apple bendover at the cash register.

it is funny that the child thing was brought up. we are probably going to be getting one for our two year old son. he had his aunt's iPhone figured out in about two days at 18 months old. the applications for learning writing and numbers are fantastic.

I prefer 8 track.

What do you guys thing the View Sonic G tablet??

You are the one who is confused. This is not a "betamax" situation. External keyboards, mice, voice recognition, etc, are features. Comparing a Slate to an iPad is Apples to Oranges (ha!). An iPad is a friggen giant iPod. A Slate is a tiny, full function PC. Sometimes a keyboard and mouse are nice to use. Most of the time, I can sit on the sofa and surf with the touch screen.

My issue is you are paying the same, or more, for less funtionality. I'm glad I waited for the Slate.

You miss the point. Most consumers who want a tablet don't want a full function PC. They want a friggin big iPod. They had netbooks available for years and stayed away in droves.

The Galaxy Tab prices were cut earlier this month, and the flood of new tablets is a lot like the flood of Android phones. Got a Verizon "preview" of 4 new 4G phones at CES, and all had something to call "technically superior" to the iPhone 4. But all their sales will not add up to the iPhone 4's sales. It's Snow White or the Seven Dwarfs. The tablet market is similar to the smartphone market.

But back to the original Tab vs. iPad comparison, it is exactly Beta vs VHS. Similar features with arguable technical differences that don't register on the scale of consumer perception except with a few fanboys.

Now, you and I are not typical consumers and things like USB ports probably count for more with us. But we also drive evolved VW Beetles and 'normal' consumers don't understand us.

I realize that a lot of folks were outside the consumer electronics industry when the Beta/VHS war was on, and don't realize that the 'Beta is better' urban legend came primarily from Sony PR, which pointed out critically important differences like the smaller cassette size and that Beta required the tape to be pulled a shorter distance out of the cassette to be read. It was effective enough to bolster the Beta stalwarts, but not persuasive to Joe Sixpack.

think about it this way, James -- look around you (not at work; on the street) & ask yourself how many people have (or care about) your level of technological adroitness?

most people just want to surf the net & update their Faceplant page

The deal is that there are a couple of different sorts of users. Power Users that want something that's a laptop alternative, those would be RB. For them, something like the slate is perfect. If i want that sort of functionality, I'll just go upstairs to my desktop, or use the laptop they give me at work. I don't want a PC/Laptop shrunk into a tablet to use on the couch while watching TV, or to travel. I want a tablet that's basically a smaller, more convenient version of a netbook. For what I want, an iPad or one of the Android tablets is perfect. AND THEY ARE CHEAPER THAN THE SLATE. ;) (If you don't need all of the extra stuff or you don't want the fully loaded model of the ipad) Yes, if you want the 64GB+3G and the dock and the bluetooth keyboard, then you're better off getting something like the slate.

Personally, I think if there aren't already, that there will be Android tabs that successfully compromise between the iPad and the Slate. More functionality, personalization capabilities, power and options than the ipad, but cheaper than anything running Windows 7.

I think Steve and Randy are looking at this the right way. There's room for a difference of opinion here on what's important. Apple seems to be aiming at a product that does not cannibalize its MacBook and MacBook Air lines.

I do not own an iPad. I might find the next generation to my liking, though. Consumer feedback is pushing Apple to make less of a niche product than they originally intended. Hopefully, they'll get a little competitive pressure as well. But one thing I know for sure. 2-3 years from now, there will be iPads, iPad accessories, iPad software, iPad peripherals, etc. I do not know if any of those will exist for the myriad 'other' tablet alternatives.