New to some of the recent technology

I hope I can get answers to questions when they arise as I try new tools. My first question is, what exactly can you do with an ipad that you can't do with a laptop? Other than the fact that an ipad is lighter and cheaper that is. Also, what should I know about apps vs. software?

usingmac said:

My first question is, what exactly can you do with an ipad that you can't do with a laptop?

Click to expand...

I'll give you a couple things to think about:

1. What can you do with a cell phone that you can't do with a laptop (iPads are basically a big cell phone/iPhone)?
2. What can you do with a tablet (iPad, Google Nexus, Amazon Kindle, etc.) that you cannot do with a laptop?

iPad vs. laptop is really a lot about the experience & convenience…and less about what can a iPad do that a laptop cannot.

The term "Apps." is just a newer term for software. "Apps" are software.

- Nick

p.s. By the way. "iPad vs. Laptop" is a subject area that has been discussed to death. Plenty of this info available via a search. Here's a couple threads to get you started:

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/ap...ions-needed-ipad-vs-kindle-vs-13-macbook.html
http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/apple-notebooks/271159-ipad-3-vs-macbook-pro-13-a.html

I disagree (strongly) with the silly notion that an iPad is just a big iPhone. That's like saying that a motorcycle is just a small, uncomfortable car.

They are very different things, built for different purposes. iPads also don't compete with notebooks on anything more than the most superficial levels.

An iPad is just another WAY of doing some of the task you would do on a desktop or notebook computer. It can't do everything a notebook can do, but it can handle most of the tasks typically done on computers by most people, albeit with a touch-oriented interface.

When I got my iPad, I noticed that all my "leisure" computing shifted to the iPad, and my notebook became my "work" computer. It was mostly a question of whether (a given task) was something I'd enjoy doing on the couch or whether it really needed a desk.

I'm always kind of surprised at how little I need the desk.

Thanks for the responses. Here's my next question: What is that thing people are always holding with earbuds attached? Is it an ipod or a phone? If people can listen to music on their phones, what use is the ipod? Also, I have a first generation ipod and it works just fine for me. Is there something on newer ipods that makes them significantly different other than having more memory? Lastly, if the ipad plays music too, what's the difference in using that, other than it's huge compared to an ipod?

iPod shuffle JUST plays music. The newest iPod Nano plays music and can play video as well with the newer screen. iPod Touch can play music, movies, and games. iPhone can play music, movies, games, and make phone calls (SMS/MMS/what have you). iPad can play music, movies, games.

So in that sense, iPad is a bigger iPod touch.

Now you can use an iPhone as your music, movie, game player that makes phone calls..or like me, use the 6th gen iPod Nano purely for music and keep the iPhone as game machine/phone.

There are numerous options for you to play with. Which you decide to go with entirely depends on what your needs are..

So what's the big object with the ear buds attached? Are people listening to iphones for music in those circumstances? Is this possible on other brand phones? Is it common? If the iphone does everything, why bother buying the other stuff. It seems that all these products are just made to grab as much of the market as possible, in the process confusing people's priorities so that many can't tell the difference between what they need and all the extra fluff. Text messaging seems to be the biggest scam- an utterly useless technology that cuts off the last mode of human connection- the voice, as people apparently don't want to even hear each other on the phone anymore.

Anyone out there?

This topic and variations of it have been discussed ad nauseam on these forums. Perhaps you can search and read those threads. You would also be well served to read up on the technologies (Google and Wikipedia should help here) that interest you..

It seems that all these products are just made to grab as much of the market as possible

Click to expand...

This surely isn't news . . . it's good business to produce products that cater to as much of the market as possible surely?

in the process confusing people's priorities so that many can't tell the difference between what they need and all the extra fluff.

Click to expand...

There will always be people caught in marketing headlights with money to by every new shiny trinket.

But why worry about any of that, or any of the other scenarios and observations from your posts above.

If you just want to learn about all the different technologies and products out there, there are many resources out there. Links have been provided above to get you started.

However, if you have a 'need'... you want something to listen to music on.... or something to watch Netflix on the move, or something that lets you author documents at home and on the train . . . . etc etc.
If you have a technology gap you think needs filling, simply post on here what your needs are. What do you want to do, achieve.

With that kind of more specific request people will be more than happy to post specifics for you

usingmac said:

So what's the big object with the ear buds attached?

Click to expand...

We don't know, since you haven't really described the "big object." Could be an iPhone, an iPad mini, an iPod Classic, an iPod Touch or any of the hundreds of non-Apple smartphones out there.

Are people listening to iphones for music in those circumstances?

Click to expand...

Most of the time, yes. They could also be watching a video depending on the device. The iPhone (et al) can play music in the background while people work with other apps or read a book, etc. as well.

Is this possible on other brand phones?

Click to expand...

Yes, most smartphones can do these things.

Is it common?

Click to expand...

I would say it has replaced breathing as the thing people do most often in their waking hours.

If the iphone does everything, why bother buying the other stuff.

Click to expand...

Because everyone's needs are a little different, and no one size fits everybody.

For example, a person with a REALLY large music collection may opt to have an iPod Classic for that and use the iPhone for other things. You and I might think that's silly, but for them it's not.

But most people just use an iPod Touch or iPhone as their primary "in my pocket" entertainment system, phone, camera, internet communicator, messaging center, videoconferencing device, game system, ebook reader and life organizer.

Text messaging seems to be the biggest scam- an utterly useless technology that cuts off the last mode of human connection- the voice, as people apparently don't want to even hear each other on the phone anymore.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. While I'm not a heavy "texter," I often use text messages to send simple communications to, for example, my wife. "I'm on my way" is much easier to send as a quick message (I even have a shortcut -- omw -- for that) than to look up the number, call, hope she answers (perhaps she's busy at that moment), then talk to her just to say "I'm on my way."

I'm often giving presentations and would NOT appreciate it if people rang my phone while I'm doing that, but a text saying something like "package arrived for you" or "dinner at 9?" is very convenient since I can reply to that when I am available rather than having to stop what I am doing and answer the phone -- or rudely let it go to voicemail where (at least I) am likely to forget about it.

Text messaging will never take the place of having a conversation face-to-face, but it has its place and can be terribly useful.

Please bear with me and lets just follow the logic here to see where it goes. If one receives email by phone, how is texting better? I guess you could say you can send a message with fewer clicks and without having to open email to do it, but its such an insignificant difference. You have to pay extra for this triviality and the larger price for this is that people spend more time staring at screens and tuning out of reality. In this regard, it's pretty addicting and damaging.

As far as all the products with the overlapping features, since there are more ways to get media, it also means more distractions. In addition, most of these products and features create a perceived need on the part of consumers. More detachment from reality.

I hope this thread isn't getting too philosophical for this board. I realize I may be way off track here.

usingmac said:

I realize I may be way off track here.

Click to expand...

I think so . . . . .

usingmac said:

Please bear with me and lets just follow the logic here to see where it goes. If one receives email by phone, how is texting better? I guess you could say you can send a message with fewer clicks and without having to open email to do it, but its such an insignificant difference. You have to pay extra for this triviality and the larger price for this is that people spend more time staring at screens and tuning out of reality. In this regard, it's pretty addicting and damaging.

Click to expand...

As chas_m posted to your other question above

chas_m said:

Because everyone's needs are a little different, and no one size fits everybody
.

Click to expand...

I suspect this thread belongs more in the lounge than here but ok....I'll bite.

Please bear with me and lets just follow the logic here to see where it goes.

Click to expand...

You're not 'following logic' - just your particular view and opinion. Nothing wrong with that but it's very different to fact and logic.

If one receives email by phone, how is texting better? I guess you could say you can send a message with fewer clicks and without having to open email to do it, but its such an insignificant difference. You have to pay extra for this triviality and the larger price for this is that people spend more time staring at screens and tuning out of reality. In this regard

Click to expand...

In no particular order....
- Not all phones have email capability. Not everyone has email setup on phones that do have the capability.
- I'm guessing you're in the US or Canada? (simply from the use of Z over S in some words - apologies if I'm off the mark). In Europe it's the 'norm' for generous text message allowances to included in contracts and often data (that email would use) is a paid for bolt-on - the opposite from the scenario you describe.
- Texting allows for a continuous thread of conversation without the need to send the previous messages along or go to the trouble of deleting out that previous message. Far quicker and easier than email less "distraction from reality" - faster to navigate the conversation.
- If you do have a data allowance - texts between iDevices via iMessage text are effectively free.

On the basis of these facts I'd argue it takes longer to hold an email conversation than text.

On the subject of "tuning out of reality" - reading a book on the commute to work can do this or listening to the radio in your car. You use the phrase in a derogatory sense, but it's all about the context.

it's pretty addicting and damaging.

Click to expand...

Subjective. You argue that email gives you exactly what texting does so surely has the same addictive and harmful properties? I'd argue you can see addiction in many things and for many reasons. I see no argument to sway me that any form of electronic communication is more or less addictive than another.

What's addictive, if anything, isn't the platform, but the content. A rapid exchange of ideas, a flirty conversation, a an exchange of cross words. Each compels you to return the previous message. In these and other examples you can see addictive qualities but only in the extreme would you consider it damaging.

As far as all the products with the overlapping features, since there are more ways to get media, it also means more distractions. In addition, most of these products and features create a perceived need on the part of consumers. More detachment from reality.

Click to expand...

More ways to receive information doesn't mean more distractions. Even with modern mobile devices you, as the user, still dictate what content reaches you and how. Simultaneous, overlapping information from multiple sources is exactly what the human mind deals with every day. Determining what is and isn't important or relevant in simple and complex situations.
Getting multiple, overlapping media feeds just pulls together differing opinions, information and widens choice. Regardless, people only have so much time and attention span to absorb this media.
Far from detaching people from reality I'd argue it puts the worlds activity in an accessible and easily consumed form.
Look at the way social media responded to Sandy....... Lots of chaff and noise as with any group of people. But news, pictures, help, advice. All bought together faster and more effectively than 'traditional' methods could manage. That's about as real as it gets.
You can argue the pros and cons of the consumer society but mobile devices have revolutionised information exchange.

I have a co-worker - same age as myself - has the same opinions. He and his wife not only do not have, but have never touched or handled a computer, printer, smartphone, mobile music device (not even a Walkman), etc.; with the possible exception of when they've bought one to give to their kids/grandkids.

When his kids or grandkids have problems with one of them, he calls me.

When he wants to find the best price on something, he calls me.

When he needs to purchase something that he's had trouble locating, he calls me.

When he needs advice on purchasing one of those products that have so many brands and price points it makes your head spin trying to figure out which one you should buy, he calls me.

Thanks for making a sustained and intelligent argument. I appreciate your putting in the time. Here's what I think:

You're not 'following logic' - just your particular view and opinion. Nothing wrong with that but it's very different to fact and logic.

I am referring to my own logic when I write that.

On the subject of "tuning out of reality" - reading a book on the commute to work can do this or listening to the radio in your car. You use the phrase in a derogatory sense, but it's all about the context.

Subjective. You argue that email gives you exactly what texting does so surely has the same addictive and harmful properties? I'd argue you can see addiction in many things and for many reasons. I see no argument to sway me that any form of electronic communication is more or less addictive than another.

You have to understand what I am talking about in a more critical sense. The detachment from reality and the addictiveness caused by social media has been researched. It is understood by those who have studied the phenomena that our attention spans have been shortened and our language has been impoverished. This in addition to the broader knowledge that electronic substitutes for face-to-face conversations are an impoverishment of human relations. Reading a book isn't tuning out of reality in any sense of the term.

What's addictive, if anything, isn't the platform, but the content. A rapid exchange of ideas, a flirty conversation, a an exchange of cross words. Each compels you to return the previous message. In these and other examples you can see addictive qualities but only in the extreme would you consider it damaging.

I would argue that we are already extremely dependent on those forms of communication and the damage is part of the larger damage in social relations in our society. Social media is simply embedded in a larger problem and contributes more and more to it through ever new forms that separate us.

More ways to receive information doesn't mean more distractions. Even with modern mobile devices you, as the user, still dictate what content reaches you and how. Simultaneous, overlapping information from multiple sources is exactly what the human mind deals with every day. Determining what is and isn't important or relevant in simple and complex situations.
Getting multiple, overlapping media feeds just pulls together differing opinions, information and widens choice. Regardless, people only have so much time and attention span to absorb this media.
Far from detaching people from reality I'd argue it puts the worlds activity in an accessible and easily consumed form.
Look at the way social media responded to Sandy....... Lots of chaff and noise as with any group of people. But news, pictures, help, advice. All bought together faster and more effectively than 'traditional' methods could manage. That's about as real as it gets.
You can argue the pros and cons of the consumer society but mobile devices have revolutionised information exchange.[/QUOTE]

This interpretation doesn't take into account the facts but deals only with theory. In theory those things seem true, but there is a social impoverishment that happens as a result of our dependency on social media.

I am open to media and how it can make my life easier, but i am skeptical by nature about such things and approach them with care. I am surprised more people don't find our dependence on all these products with their plethora of mainly trivial uses as troublesome.

Sorry. I can't figure out how to embed specific quotes. And in response to the later post, I am not afraid of technology and find your friend's aversion to it absurd.

You don't appear to have read or perhaps understood my post which is a shame.

Logic is logic, anything else is your opinion... As per my post.

Books written as works of fiction are there as escapism. My post stands.

My 'interpretation' as you put it simply isn't that, it's fact.

You mention social media research. I'd ask you to post links but it would serve little purpose I fear. For every link you post there will be one show counter research. These are evolving technologies and there is no absolute.

You throw social impoverishment around. As with most buzzwords this means little and represents less.
As with any kind of exchange, from a forum like this, to print, to bush telegraph, to twitter, Facebook, Instagram, telegram, letter, email and text you will find human beings at the heart of them all. People with opinions, thoughts, feelings and agendas.
The platform is irrelevant people are people. The mechanic of the communication, while faster and slicker than ever now, it changes little.

Your 'logic'/opinion just seems to come across as a dislike of change, a dislike of the evolving technological world. I can understand the distrust and fear. It's not a critism but look through your arguments then search back through modern history and see those same arguments married to each technological leap.

I'll stop posting now. It's been fun be I think we've reached a natural end.

Might I suggest a new post in Schwebs lounge. I'd be happy to debate specifics if there's a particular aspect you'd like to discuss away from the tech q&a threads

A radio's use is "mainly trivial" -- music, hot-air talk shows and such -- but it sure comes in handy when a hurricane shows up.

An iPhone (et al) only do what you want them to do. They can make your life easier or more complex, but YOU choose those aspects. Nobody forces anything on you.

My iPhone *definitely* makes my life simpler in some aspects -- and richer (or as you might say more "complex") in other ways by opening up new possibilities.

75% of these posts exceeded my ADD threshold

Thanks for engaging in discussion with me on this topic. However, I would urge you to read about how and why these new technologies are problematic to our social relations. If you were educated on this, your responses would be completely different.

I'll end this thread with one more question. How many times have you found yourself sitting by people at a nearby table in a restaurant or cafe and noted that they are both or all playing and communicating on their phones while ignoring those in front of and around them. That pretty much sums it up. Technology has never been this intrusive. It's more than simply another technological leap. Something to think about.