[NTLK] OT: Mossberg gives thumbs up to iPad

James Fraser wheresthatistanbul-newtontalk at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 2 16:20:01 EDT 2010


--- On Fri, 4/2/10, Ryan <newtontalk at me.com> wrote:

> And while a video camera would be nice when the iPad is stationary, it 
> won't work well when you have it in your hands. Too shakey, video would 
> be erratic. Apple knows this. If it really was a killer feature, they 
> would have put it on there.

I have to ask: if "shaky video" is such an undesirable quality, then why do cell phones have built-in cameras?  Why, exactly, would cell phone manufacturers expend the effort to build such a useless (according to the above line of reasoning) feature into their devices?

Could it be possible that a camera is perceived by consumers as being a good (or at least useful) way of capturing and conveying information?

I agree that cell phone footage usually isn't the best in terms of video quality, but I'm not necessarily convinced that "suboptimal" is the same as "not worth having."

> And when you add these things, you increase weight and design  
> complexity, and reduce battery life and increase costs.

I agree entirely: the more features, the greater the manufacturing cost, the greater the power drain, etc.

At the same time, I think it's worth mentioning the possibility that, just because Apple doesn't include feature X in a given device, it's not necessarily a given that the feature in question is useless and/or not desired by consumers.  

Maybe it's just me, but, somehow, I have a hard time believing that cell phone users had no need for cut and paste functionality before 2009,  which is when Apple finally saw fit to incorporate it into a product they had first released in 2007.


James Fraser

More information about the NewtonTalk mailing list