Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Oct 2010 16:00 UTC
In the News An interesting discussion is currently raging through the world of computing, or more accurately, through the world of bloggers and analysts. It basically comes down to this: should the iPad be included in laptop and desktop sales figures? If it is included - Apple becomes the largest PC manufacturer in the United States. But, if the iPad should be included - why not the modern smartphone?
Thread beginning with comment 445577
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: My 2 cents
by jgagnon on Mon 18th Oct 2010 19:42 UTC in reply to "My 2 cents"
jgagnon
Member since:
2008-06-24

But SOMEONE programmed it to display/create (camera, etc.) that content. Are you saying the end user has to be the one to be able to program it? I know many people that simply played games on their Commodore 64 and never even tried to program it (complete lack of interest, not intellect). That didn't stop the C64 from being a "personal computer" nor should it stop the iPad or a smartphone from being considered one. They are all programmable.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: My 2 cents
by Shkaba on Mon 18th Oct 2010 21:16 in reply to "RE: My 2 cents"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

... Are you saying the end user has to be the one to be able to program it? ...

You obviously didn't read my post with due attention, otherwise you would have noticed "LOAD/CREATE PROGRAM"! So, to answer your question, I am not (nor did I) say that the end user has to be a programmer. The fact that a lot of ignorant users can/could purchase a PC (be it a Commodore 64, Commodore 128, Amiga 500, or an XT286) doesn't mean that I have to revise the definition of a PC that I find best describes this category of devices!! That would be equivalent to changing a definition of a car, just because a lot of people that have purchased a car do not know how to drive.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: My 2 cents
by jgagnon on Mon 18th Oct 2010 21:49 in reply to "RE[2]: My 2 cents"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

My point was that you were saying an iPod-like device is somehow "reduced" when only used for consumption... when someone created/loaded a program that allowed to that consumption to occur. The reduction is not with the device but how it is used by any given user, hence my reference to the old C64 days. People make applications for the iPod and other devices that are used primarily for consumption so the device itself is not a one-way street.

Reply Parent Score: 1