[kaplin42]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

There's the real gist of it right there...

They could have consumed much more of an initial market just by doing a few of these simple and seemingly obvious things. Most of you know how much I support Mac. But I'm very disappointed in the iPad. The biggest kicker for me is that it's running iPhone OS instead of OS X.

I didn't get why they did this either, except to take more advantage of the App market on iTunes. Which brings up a question. If I buy an app for my iPhone, will I have to buy it again for my iPad?

That's beyond stupid, and I think it's the detail that will hurt them the most in the end.

The biggest market for this type of device is school/medical/record keeping roles. On the go data entry. The iPad will not allow that group to load the software they're already using. Along with Office, or other productivity software.

This sounds like NO MULTI-TASKING to me IJH

And it will require them to take extra steps with a lot of data transfer, as opposed to just connecting a flash drive or SD card. It limits the HD space for saving things locally too. Even 64GB won't be enough in some environments.

I understand the way Apple likes to "out do" certain niche markets, and limit overall versatility to increase specialized functionality. But IMO, the opportunity to take a stranglehold to a much more broad "versatile tablet/ebook/netbook" market far outweighs that. They could have given a pile driver to Kindle, Nook, and netbook manufacturers all at once with this single nifty device. But instead they "iPhone crippled" it and priced it low to compete.

Maybe the safe move will pay off in the end, but I think most would have preferred to see the huge splash...

Pretty solid man. I agree 100%