This is not going to work in the era of the iPad-only home. While I understand the technical reasons and humble beginnings of the iTunes store, let's face it, there are a lot of people who don't even own computers now because their iPhone and/or iPad suffices.
EDIT: I can't reply to the thread below so I'm putting my reply here. I have activated a half dozen iPhones on my Mac for friends that don't own computers. While it may not be the smartest thing (no backups), it is certainly doable and both the iPad and the iPhone are still very much useful without a computer.
The only unbiased, quantifiable data I can come up with is a simple Google search:
I think (I'm only guessing) he means this "[L]et's face it, there are a lot of people who don't even own computers now because their iPhone and/or iPad suffices."
To the best of my knowledge you need a computer with iTunes installed to start an iPad at all. A home without any other computer means that your iPad is a flashy paperweight. Also, it's really far too early to tell if the iPad (which is being sold in huge numbers) will replace other things or (as I think Apple hopes) supplement other devices.
Edit: Please notice I say "iPad" above. You respond by talking about the iPhone. They're not the same in this regard, I think. The iPad requires a computer with iTunes to start it initially.
All of that said, I agree that their current model really should change. (Also, the pop-up message in the blog is stunningly obnoxious in wording. It's approaching the "bomb + ok" level of bad.)
That was exactly what I was getting at. It's also not a matter of "is it technically possible" but (s)he claims that it's a popular choice. I don't buy it, but would love to be proven wrong.
The absurd claim about the "iPad only home", given that the iPad requires a computer to activate and manage.
Apple has gone out of its way to make sure the iPad is treated as an additional device, not a sole device for a user. This is important because it allows (or at least helps to allow) the iPad to be judged on its own merit for its own uses, not as if it were the general-purpose computer that some (critically: not Apple) like to claim that it is, much to the iPad's detriment.
I've got a couple of non-techie friends who have pretty much stopped using their computers in favor of their iPhones. They'd cut the computer out entirely if they could.
You have to have access a computer to first turn on an iPad, but my grandmother has gone just fine so far using an iPad with no accompanying computer.
If you don't sync photos/music and use the iPad for watching Netflix, email, and web surfing, there's absolutely no reason to connect the iPad to a computer except for every few months when Apple pushes out an OS update.
Owning a computer is a requirement to use both devices.
It's a rather silly requirement on first boot.
I wonder if the requirement is there only because they want to make the user aware of the iTunes sync feature. At this point in the iDevice life cycle, the PC is an accessory to the device, and not the other way around. It's just a nice-to-have.
Is it? Couldn't I just use someone else's to get it all setup/registered? As far as I know there are no restrictions on the number of devices you can sync to a single computer.
I borrowed a friend's computer to provision my iPod Touch. (I don't have Windows or Mac OS X, so I can't run iTunes.)
I can't sync music/movies/photos to the built-in apps (this wouldn't even be an issue for someone with no computer), but I can use the web browser and third-party apps just fine.
