Is the ipad a good buy for my technophobe mother

MadTechie

alanrowell wrote: »

If you buy the optional devices that allow you to load photos - one of which is a PC or a Mac

another is Apple iPad Camera Connection Kit

alanrowell wrote: »

You've also got the problem of limited storage space for photos - so you'd need an external storage device (ie a PC or Mac) to save them on.

okay you win on that one, but at a cost online storage works well any cloud storage solutions will work maybe sugar sync

edgex wrote: »

the answer to your question: NO
it is not a computer, so cannot do what youve mentioned as wanting to do

True its not a laptop replacement but what part can't it do ?
as it looks like it does all of them!

Marty_J

BillScarab wrote: »

Marty, they may be pushing for a technology to replace Flash or it could just be an excuse. They don't allow anything on their devices that might impinge on the App Store. It's not just Flash, it's Java, Python, Ruby and .Net.

Basically they don't like anything that they can't control.

Having said that they control their ecosystem and it's up to them what they allow and up to consumers whether that suits them. It seems to suit a lot of people so they must be doing something right.

I agree that, for better or worse, Apple are control-freaks, but if Flash goes the way of the Dodo and HTML 5 takes over, all those Flash games will become HTML 5 games. They aren't going to just vanish.

If Apple achieve their aims, it will result in more games outside the App Store ecosystem. Not just games, but fully featured web apps totally outside of Apple's control.

edgex wrote: »

the answer to your question: NO

it is not a computer, so cannot do what youve mentioned as wanting to do

Web browsing? Check.

Loading and viewing photos? Check.

No viruses to worry about? Check.

Easier to use? Check.

Coolest 65 year old in the village? Check.

Am I missing something?

Leopard

I think one thing that you are missing, Marty J, reading through your heroic and protracted defence of the iPad through several threads, as I try to catch up on postings here over the last few months, is that, whether they like Flash or hate it, some people actually do need their device to be able to handle Flash on websites.

I'm not talking about people who play silly little games on their computers; I'm talking about people who have to use Flash-polluted websites for professional reasons.

I'll give you an example. The Official Formula One website uses Flash. The Official Formula One website is what provides the Live Timing display at Grands Prix. So, if your device doesn't support Flash, you can't use it to do your work.

(It also means that if someone wants to watch a race on television and follow the details of what's happening with Live Timing via the Internet, they can't do it with an iPad.)

In both those scenarios, the end result is that if an iPad (or anything else) doesn't support Flash, they simply can't use it: so – much though they might like one otherwise – they won't buy one.

I think you've put the horse before the cart on this one. It's no use you complaining that Flash stinks, so people should stop using it. Many people do hate Flash but have no option, professionally, about having to use it, because they have no alternative.

Other than that, I think it's an intriguing device and I shall be fascinated to see how it fares, as people (well, some people) gradually learn to stop trying to compare it directly with other devices, open their minds and begin to grasp that it's something new and different.

Those who just dismiss it are those who don't have enough creativity, imagination and ingenuity to see that it opens possibilities to do things that existing devices can't do, or do badly. The shortcomings aren't in the device; the shortcoming is in their minds.

(And before anyone who's awake spots that there appears to be a slight contradiction in what I'm saying above, let me state that I'm aware of that but I think there is a fundamental difference between the two points that I'm making and that that makes both of them valid. )

BillScarab

I think one of the issues with Apple's insistence that HTML 5 will replace Flash is that HTML 5 is that HTML 5 isn't even finished yet. If it was in use and Apple said we won't support Flash as it's being replaced that would be understandable but to refure to support it when the projected replacement isn't out there yet does seem silly.

The other issue is that will devleopers start recoding websites the minute HTML 5 is available or will it take years for Flash to finally die?

It seems especially silly in the case of the iPad which would be ideal for viewing video on the web, much of which uses Flash.

[Deleted User]

In my opinion Google have taken the best approach to the crossroads that Flash and aspects of HTML 5 represent by engaging Adobe to work in improving the performance of Flash in Chrome, integrating it into the browser in order to take advantage of the sandbox model that is available and to automatically keep the plugin updated to the very latest version, which will dramatically reduce the vectors of attack that the plugin currently a conduit for. They're doing this in tandem with implementing aspects of HTML 5 as they become mature enough to be suitable for mainstream use. The best of both worlds for everyone.

The erosion of the Flash's market share is not something that is going to be sudden. Adobe have a vested interest in the continuation of the product and are not just going to give up, though I don’t think I’m alone in realising that the pressure is on for the failings of the plugin to be corrected.

How many years away is HTML 5 from being able to entirely replicate the functionality of Flash? I think this is an important fact that people are ignoring while getting carried away with the small video capabilities element assuming it will be the deathknell for Flash entirely. Apple's contempt for Flash is not about supporting standards, it's about Flash represents a threat to the tight control they exert over their platform, just HTML 5 provides a better looking way to shun it. It’s hardly a surprising fact that doing something intensive on a battery powered device is going have an impact on the time required between charges, but that’s something that should be down to the user to decide how to use their device.

Leopard

......................

Fire_Fox

Leopard wrote: »

I'm not talking about people who play silly little games on their computers; I'm talking about people who have to use Flash-polluted websites for professional reasons.

I'll give you an example. The Official Formula One website uses Flash. The Official Formula One website is what provides the Live Timing display at Grands Prix. So, if your device doesn't support Flash, you can't use it to do your work.

The above paragraphs don't follow on from one another - much as I love F1 few people need to watch it for work! - and have no place in a thread about a sixty-something technophobe mother.

Perhaps you could explain your visual reference to the Windows 7 tablet? Is it as intuitive as the Apple OS or is it more like a netbook running Windows sans keyboard (which my sixty-something technophobe mother has largely failed to master).

Marty_J

Leopard wrote: »

I think one thing that you are missing, Marty J, reading through your heroic and protracted defence of the iPad through several threads, as I try to catch up on postings here over the last few months, is that, whether they like Flash or hate it, some people actually do need their device to be able to handle Flash on websites.

I'm not talking about people who play silly little games on their computers; I'm talking about people who have to use Flash-polluted websites for professional reasons.

I'll give you an example. The Official Formula One website uses Flash. The Official Formula One website is what provides the Live Timing display at Grands Prix. So, if your device doesn't support Flash, you can't use it to do your work.

(It also means that if someone wants to watch a race on television and follow the details of what's happening with Live Timing via the Internet, they can't do it with an iPad.)

In both those scenarios, the end result is that if an iPad (or anything else) doesn't support Flash, they simply can't use it: so – much though they might like one otherwise – they won't buy one.

But there's an app for that. :cool:

I think you've put the horse before the cart on this one. It's no use you complaining that Flash stinks, so people should stop using it. Many people do hate Flash but have no option, professionally, about having to use it, because they have no alternative.

If someone absolutely must use Flash, then clearly an iPod Touch, iPhone or iPad isn't for them.

BillScarab wrote: »

I think one of the issues with Apple's insistence that HTML 5 will replace Flash is that HTML 5 is that HTML 5 isn't even finished yet. If it was in use and Apple said we won't support Flash as it's being replaced that would be understandable but to refure to support it when the projected replacement isn't out there yet does seem silly.

Love them or hate them, that's Apple for you. Everyone threw a hissy fit when they got rid of parallell ports on their computers and totally moved over to USB.

It all works out in the end.

The other issue is that will devleopers start recoding websites the minute HTML 5 is available or will it take years for Flash to finally die?

Flash will have a slow painful death, hastened in part by websites such as YouTube switching over to HTML 5.

anewhope wrote: »

Apple's contempt for Flash is not about supporting standards, it's about Flash represents a threat to the tight control they exert over their platform, just HTML 5 provides a better looking way to shun it.

Given that the widespread adoption of HTML 5 will give Apple less control over what people do on their devices, how do you envisage this working exactly?

Leopard

Fire_Fox wrote: »

The above paragraphs don't follow on from one another - much as I love F1 few people need to watch it for work! - and have no place in a thread about a sixty-something technophobe mother.

They follow-on perfectly from each other, in a logical flow of argument, pertinent to the thread, which commences in my opening paragraph that precedes them and which continues in the paragraphs that then succeed them – culminating in a conclusion that tackles a major issue that is of relevance to both professional and to leisure users when contemplating the purchase of an iPad. Flash.

But if I entered into an argument about that, you and others would then complain that that had no place in a thread about a sexagenarian, technophobic parent (however emboldened) either.

Not, for that matter, that this tread is actually, as you claim, about the aforesaid senior citizen, per se: it's about the iPad and whether one would be suitable for her.

If you doubt the relevance of Flash to that question, ask yourself how much use an iPad would be to her if she is likely to want to visit websites that require it. They aren't all devoted to what I called "silly little games": many of them are devoted to entirely serious things, which is what I was pointing out – by giving an example of a site that is used by professionals but enjoyed by amateurs as well.

If, moreover, professionals won't buy it because its lack of the ability to handle Flash renders it unusable for the purposes to which they would otherwise like to apply it, the commercial viability of the device itself is compromised – which is of direct relevance to whether others would be wise to invest their money in the purchase of one for leisure purposes.

Perhaps you could explain your visual reference to the Windows 7 tablet? Is it as intuitive as the Apple OS or is it more like a netbook running Windows sans keyboard (which my sixty-something technophobe mother has largely failed to master).

I've never tried using a tablet of the type I depicted and to which you refer but I'd imagine it has all the legendary intuitiveness and user-friendliness for which Windows is famous (and which is often compared to that of a cornered rat).

To inflict such a device on an aged relative, in preference to one that runs Apple's Mac OS X, would be regarded by many as an act of wanton and unforgivable cruelty.

Please forgive me if my boundless admiration for the talents, intelligence and charisma of Steve Ballmer led me to post a picture of him. I am well-known in this sub-forum (and, indeed, around the world) for my passionate and unquestioning devotion to Microsoft, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Wally Waterboard, Dicky "Camp" Delta, Ronald Reagan, Danforth Quayle, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon and all things Republican in general. God [STRIKE]Bless[/STRIKE] Save America!

Marty_J wrote: »

But there's an app for that. :cool:

It doesn't do the same things as this.

(And clicking innocently on your link downloaded the bloody thing stright into iTunes on my Mac, which can't run it. :mad: )

By the way, Marty J, this is for you. I couldn't find it when I was looking for it in the context you will remember privately, but I might as well pass it on to you here, while you're online.

Pythagorous

Well thanks for all the replies. Some very useful, others not so!

Best to take ma down the apple store and let her play with the thing before deciding.