So you have arbitrarily decided your definition of a portable device is what fits into your definition of the size of a pocket. This tablet is less than 25% larger than your arbitrarily decided maximum pocket size. While we are at it, your arbitrarily decided maximum pocket size is rather huge. I am guessing you have decided on a particular manufacture that only has up to 8 inch tablets and are trying to justify it.
So you have arbitrarily decided your definition of a portable device is what fits into your definition of the size of a pocket.
Many, many years ago when Apple built its first "portable" computer, they used the definition "a device that can be carried by an average ten year old girl for one mile". ( I assume they meant "can be carried" and not "can be carried without complaining").
I would love to see a 10 year old girl trying to carry the Macintosh Luggable [wikipedia.org] for one mile. The damn thing weighed 16 pounds. Also, who would entrust their 10 year old girl with a $6500 (in 1989) slab of technology to carry for a mile?
Not portable. (Score:0)
If I can't fit it in a pocket, it's not portable, I ain't buying.
Give me a 7 to 8 inch tablet, at least those can fit in some pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
So you have arbitrarily decided your definition of a portable device is what fits into your definition of the size of a pocket.
Many, many years ago when Apple built its first "portable" computer, they used the definition "a device that can be carried by an average ten year old girl for one mile". ( I assume they meant "can be carried" and not "can be carried without complaining").
Re:Not portable. (Score:3)
I would love to see a 10 year old girl trying to carry the Macintosh Luggable [wikipedia.org] for one mile. The damn thing weighed 16 pounds. Also, who would entrust their 10 year old girl with a $6500 (in 1989) slab of technology to carry for a mile?