Fraser Speirs, on arguments regarding traditional PCs versus the iPad:
As I’ve written before, the question what you want to do with your computer has never had more impact on exactly the device you should buy. Therefore, it’s still relevant and worthwhile to ask the question of the iPad: what are you capable of, and what are you best at? Further, as the iOS ecosystem has developed, another question: if I add these accessories to you, what can you do now?
Still, I feel that the consumption/creation split is far too simplistic a curve to grade these devices on. It recognises almost nothing about the user’s task beyond whether it’s an input task or an output task. There’s far more subtlety that we can reach for.
I think one of the biggest misconceptions since Steve Jobs declared the advent of the iPad as the “Post-PC Era” is that iPads are designed to completely replace PCs. Subsequent arguments have revolved around consumption versus creation. The implication is that the iPad is only useful for consuming material - that you can’t do “real” work.
This line of thinking is flawed for several reasons. First, it’s just untrue. From the iPad, I can work remotely on supercomputers, edit and run code, write articles, create artwork or music, and so much more. Most importantly, the comparative distinction is overly simplistic. The “Post-PC” era isn’t about one device to rule them all, rather it is about selecting the device for a given task such that we maximize our efficiency. Speirs smartly notes this difference and presents an interesting chart that illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of today’s popular device categories - phones, tablets, and PCs.