Whether you're a multimedia programmer, a musician, a filmmaker, a newspaper editor, or a novelist... you're unlikely to find the iPad more useful than a MacBook in any way.
Of course, I'm not an art student, so correct me if I'm wrong :)
Of course, I'm not an art student, so correct me if I'm wrong :)
There's another way the iPad appeals to vain, picky art types, and that's how fringeless it is. Even OS X bothers me in small, subtle ways that my iPod touch avoided with its utterly simplistic design. Taking that design and building a computer out of it means I might actually finally appreciate a piece of hardware. Simplicity means losing hardcore technique, but I enjoy the thought of being able to doodle digital images with my hands.
The iPhone lets me buy movies on the fly, which gives me a great convenience. But it's small. The iPad, on the other hand, lets me buy from anywhere, but it's large enough to make movies enjoyable. If I'm about to get on an 8-hour flight, maybe I buy a book and rent a movie. The fact that I can pay a small amount of money, get something to watch on the plane, and never have to worry with physical packaging, that's nice.
Certainly that encroaches on Apple TV. But Apple TV is a bastard son anyway.
I see the iPad as more of a home-mobile device, rather than a mobile device. That is, it's a device mainly for home use which allows you to be mobile around the house with your information, instead of a device you take outside. A laptop is a device you take outside, because it can do so much more if you need it--like work stuff. If you're going out you'd want to know you have a more capable device on hand just in case.
If the iPad gets the ten hours it claims, it may be perfect for frequent flyers who want their own music, video and books, and a bit of e-mail reading and document perusal on the side.
It would have been better if they had all the fancy touch controls on a macbook air size device that could flip open 350 degrees into a tablet, and flip back into a normal laptop.