I load the entire country for a variety of reasons. For FF to be useful to folks like Ted (and me, too), then it needs to have the capacity to load the current charts for the entire country and the next cycle when it comes out.
I travel - a lot - and I take a lot of photos in RAW. Right now, my iPad 2 is more than 50% full. I need a 64. I suspect many others do, too.
I suspect that most do not. Even most folks who use the device for photos aren't uploading from an external source, and even fewer are doing so in RAW. If I were shooting in RAW, I suspect I'd have a use case for post-processing that would require something more than a tablet. It sounds like you've simply chosen the wrong tool for the job.
In any case, you don't need more than a 16 for ForeFlight, so your financial analysis is inaccurate unless you also consider the value the extra expense brings to other uses.
Apple's been clear since the launch of the iPad that it is intended to be a cloud-focused device.
Ever try and send 4 GB of photos over a hotel wireless internet link out to the internet? Thought not.
To be candid, I generally never try to send anything over hotel wireless (or other public wireless networks), because I've found most of them to be underperforming compared with AT&T LTE. That's just my experience.
Translation: it's someone else's fault.
Well, since Adobe killed Mobile Flash, what, exactly, would your proposed solution be other than converting away from traditional Flash-based content? As mobile devices become more ubiquitous, content providers are going to have to convert or find another way to deliver their content to mobile devices. It's inevitable.
No, in my mind Apple is the victim of their own design decisions and determination that they know better than their users.
If that's the case, then many companies would very much like to be similarly victimized. The fact that you have an esoteric use case for a device which was never intended to do what you're trying to do with it is hardly justification for rational criticism. For that matter, these devices were never intended for cockpit use, either, and quite frankly it's amazing that they perform as well as they do in that regard. If all things were equal, would I pick an iPad over a Garmin portable for the cockpit? No way. But all things aren't equal, especially the cost of ownership.
If the device is effectively going to be obsoleted within 2-3 years, then losing updates after a year is a non-issue. If you get a Nexus 7, for example, at 1/3 of the cost of an equivalent Apple product and you keep it for 2 years, you're still ahead of the game. So is the environment in not having to deal with millions of functional but obsolete devices tossed into the trash (not to mention the lower uptake of raw materials).
The original iPad isn't obsolete, and neither are subsequent ones. The vast majority of iOS devices are capable of upgrading to the latest iOS, and Apple's done a reasonably good job of ensuring investment protection in that regard. At the end of the day, all manufacturers want to protect as many revenue streams as they can.
The business model is one that car manufacturers and others played for many years: ensure that folks have to buy an expensive replacement every couple of years (about the time that their vehicle is paid off). That is until the foreign car makers started producing higher quality product that delivered better value. Simply put, Apple does not deliver value. (Although I'm ragging on Apple here, MS and Google each have substantial shortcomings of their own.)
Apple delivers substantially more value than either MS or Google, as I've pointed out (especially regarding value). And Google and MS certainly don't produce a higher-quality product. Inexpensive != value.
I'm not necessarily anti-Google nor pro-Apple. There are plenty of things about iOS and Apple that I don't like, but the reality is that Apple's products work very well and very reliably for most things without a steep learning curve or tinkering. I don't have time to tinker; my electronic devices are tools.
Point of fact: even if you bought a DVD, you acquired a license, not ownership.
Yes, you acquire a license that historically has authorized you to use the product on the DVD in perpetuity. The "App Store" model is essentially a software subscription model, where licenses to use are often time limited and "coin operated."
JKG
)
