One of my Twitter followers, John Taylor, asked me why I chose the wifi only version of the iPad. This post - the first I've written 'on request' - answers John's question.
It wasn't an instant decision. But the more I thought about how I'd use my new toy, the more I realised the 3G version would be an unnecessary indulgence. (A description some would apply to all versions of Apple's tablet!) For me, the iPad is a sofa companion, not a road warrior. It means I can do my browsing, check emails and keep up to date with Twitter and Facebook from the living room. I don't carry it with me on my travels except on holiday - such as our current fortnight at Greenwood Grange near Dorchester in Dorset - where it's proving a wonderful way of viewing holiday photos.
If Britain had a better 3G network I'd probably have opted for the 3G version. But, as the BBC's technology reporter Rory Cellan-Jones blogged today, the mobile phone networks have failed to fulfil the dream of a fast mobile internet. If I'd spent an extra £100 on the 3G iPad, I'd have found it useless at Greenwood Grange, as there's virtually no mobile internet coverage in our cottage. (And had Greenwood Grange's wifi service, provided by @clubwifi, actually worked, 3G would have been unnecessary.)
The other reason why I didn't splash out on the top iPad model is that I'm already paying for mobile internet through my iPhone. I didn't want to pay another monthly payment for data on the go - or to pay more every time I went online. (I love the iPhone's 'as much as you can eat' pricing for the mobile internet.) So far, I've got no regrets about my iPad choice. I don't miss the 3G connection. I'm sure in time that all mobile computers will come with the latest super-fast cellular connections. But for now, wifi is a good option.
Recent Comments