I loved the cube . And i still feel you old luddites are splitting hairs .
Except for the shape box vs rect . they both are small computers with no head .
After the cube was no more apple made the mini .
Long after, and there's no connection between the two, except that they are both "small."
BTW, do you even know what a "Luddite" is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The reason why marketing was a major culprit is because Apple didn't make it known to the buying public at large just what this machine was. It was like buying a pig in a poke. Or better, a silk purse in a pigs ear.
It didn't seem to have as much value as the price indicated, because people didn't know just how complex and versatile it was. Some makers had video cards for it and other internal upgrades in the short lifetime it had. But if it was better known, more would have been seen, and more people would have bought it.
The other problem as we've said, was price. More than a few of us at the time had said that they should have had both G3 and G4 models out. The G4 was an expensive processor at the time, and Apple positioned this at the performance end of their products. If the economic situation was better then, it might have succeeded, but it wasn't.
It was like the Edsel, a great machine, at a bad time.
Ouch. Actually the Edsel was no great technological wonder, and it was spectacularly ugly.
Anyway, you could write essentially the same requiem for any failed product. The premise being that you can sell anything, provided the marketing is done right. I don't think this is necessarily true. Taking your example, the Edsel wasn't going to sell no matter what Ford did to market it. It just wasn't a car people wanted.
It was like the Edsel, a great machine, at a bad time.
There was nothing at all good about the Cube. Revisionist hitories can not change that one bit. Take out the iPhone and we might see Apples success rate with bew producxs. To be 59% if they are lucky.
There was nothing at all good about the Cube. Revisionist hitories can not change that one bit. Take out the iPhone and we might see Apples success rate with bew producxs. To be 59% if they are lucky.
Dave
That's..... an interesting figure. Can you show your work?
That is not the point. Running iPhone apps in a tablet is like buying a rig to toy with Paint
EDIT: I DO NOT mean that iPhone apps shouldn't be supported, but using iPhone OS on it just for that is crappy thinking.
Correct. Apps are written for specific devices, and apps cannot suddenly work on a larger device. They would have to largely be rewritten and any custom graphics used in them would need to be recreated.
i almost believed the story until i saw the bad videos. so we're supposed to believe that this individual got their hands on some prototype tablet hardware but they couldn't manage to pull their camera back 3 inches to reveal the bezel, the frame, the thickness and all other tablety things. no one cares about the gui. we already have been using this gui on the iphone for 2 years now you moron. the pacing was also bad. it looks like they rehearsed with that animation only twice before rolling camera.
I think the videos were of a dev kit and not the final hardware.
The problem I?ve personally had with yours and others mockups is that they all had Mac OS X on a small touchscreen display. The idea of a tablet in and of itself isn?t crazy, but it needs to have an OS interface that is well adapted for that type of computing. It?s only been very recent in the tablet rumours that we?ve heard about and seen mockups that actually aren?t trying to shoehorn Mac OS X into the mythical device (or making it just an expanded display for the iPhone OS X).
That's why they are redoing snow leopard for it!!!
Ha! Advice from Internet tough guys - I love it...
And we come to the crux of your issue - shoddy assumptions. Have you learned nothing from Apple in the post-iPod era? They are hardly predictable and they know what they are doing.
It is amusing to read posts like yours tho... more so for the inevitable silence from the chicken littles such as yourself after the device is released an becomes a runaway success.
Clearly you are far more interested in revealing your own biases than you are understanding what others are saying. As I have outlined in this thread already, it is my view that Apple will not bring to market a glorified iPod Touch costing more than most laptops.
Everything right now is speculation and I am commenting on that s;peculation since that's all there is. I happen to be impressed, in fact, with how thorough Apple has been in developing assorted products. If you were paying attention, you'd realize as much.
Where did the hundreds a month come from? I pay $71 a month for the most part. With iPhone I got rid of my old phone line, my dial up service provider and my cell phone account. In the end my average monthly bill was only a few dollars more.
Not bad and around here (Rochester NY) my service is just as good or better than the old Verison account. Further customer service at the store was one hell of a lot better. At least so far it has been a better experience.
Around here I hardly ever see an iPod making use of a hot spot. That might have something to do with not many of them being available and of good quality though. All in all 3G is well worth having. The iPhone is a fantastic little E-Mail machine and the net access can't be beat. My surprise was how much I would put it to use after getting it, 3G performance can be very addictive.
No one wouldn't do that but it is also why I wouldn't be surprised if the iPod line doesn't expand to include a model with a slightly bigger screen. Even a small expansion in screen size would make for a much more uasable device. We are talking something here that could remain in the pocket like iPhone yet offer up a better visual experience.
All that being said ten inches is still to big in my mind. I just don't see people carrying that sized device around comfortably.
I live in Canada and here, data rates are very high. It's a much costlier proposition on this side of the border. Besides every household is different. There are folks in my household, not me mind you, who would not be comfotable with losing their land line.
That's why choice is such a great thing and I'm not alone in preferring the Touch to the iPhone for monetary reasons.
Like you, I am puzzled over the decision to go to 10 inches if in fact that is the route Apple takes. It's overkill, in my view if this is intended to be Touch-like but with an enhanced Internet experience, etc. I like the Touch. I ended up using it more than I thought I might but it by no means an ideal browser.
That's all the more reason to suspect that Apple, if it is looking to bring out a device with a 10-inch screen, is not thinking in terms of an ideal Internet browser. Something somewhat larger than the Touch but nowhere close to the 10-inch range, would have made more sense. It should be kept in mind, also, that the bigger the screen the greater the battery drain, so Apple must have something we're not thinking of in mind to be willing to make that trade-off. This is going to be a very anticipated product, especially if Apple doesn't release it untiil next year. Myself, I think the odds are against the tablet being introduced next month. Apple has a major overhaul of the OS about to come to market and of course the annual iPod refresh. It doesn't need one more thing, so to speak, to maintain momentum. Early 2010 is a more likely time frame for this device's debut.
My vision for an Apple tablet is something slightly larger than a paperback book but thinner. Dual screens -- opening like a paperback. Can be oriented landscape or portrait. Screens could be used independently of each other so you could have a video playing on the top and Safari on the bottom. Or you could use the bottom screen as a virtual keyboard, touchpad, media controls, etc.
Ouch. Actually the Edsel was no great technological wonder, and it was spectacularly ugly.
Anyway, you could write essentially the same requiem for any failed product. The premise being that you can sell anything, provided the marketing is done right. I don't think this is necessarily true. Taking your example, the Edsel wasn't going to sell no matter what Ford did to market it. It just wasn't a car people wanted.
It was actually an excellent car. But it was a luxury model introduced in the middle of a recession.
There was nothing at all good about the Cube. Revisionist hitories can not change that one bit. Take out the iPhone and we might see Apples success rate with bew producxs. To be 59% if they are lucky.
Dave
Then state some real facts about it that were so bad. Your first post showed that you didn't know it had a PCI bus. What else do you know.
It was actually an excellent car. But it was a luxury model introduced in the middle of a recession.
I only partly agree with you there.
It had a lot of gadgetry, some of which didn't work very well. And the styling was bizarre.
Actually, thinking about it this way, your analogy works better for me. The Cube was a bit too much novelty for a bit too much money. So was the Edsel.
It had a lot of gadgetry, some of which didn't work very well. And the styling was bizarre.
Actually, thinking about it this way, your analogy works better for me. The Cube was a bit too much novelty for a bit too much money. So was the Edsel.
Then state some real facts about it that were so bad. Your first post showed that you didn't know it had a PCI bus. What else do you know.
If that bus doesn't conform to common standards it isn't much of a feature. When I think of expansion buses I think of plugging in standard cards with any I/O ports easily accessible.
Quote:
It's ok, I'll wait until you look it up.
Wait a long time then! It doesn't change the fact that the Cube was rejected by the community immediately upon it's arrival. That simply due to it's poor value.
It had a lot of gadgetry, some of which didn't work very well. And the styling was bizarre.
Are you talking about the Cube or the Edsel here. I guess it doesn't matter as the statements apply to both.
Quote:
Actually, thinking about it this way, your analogy works better for me. The Cube was a bit too much novelty for a bit too much money. So was the Edsel.
I see the Cube as possibly Apples best example of form over function. For people looking for function it was way to expensive. Interestingly it is defended by owners in the same way AIR is. Apparently some just take joy in struggling with minimal solutions.
I disagree with the Cube comments, it was functionally elegant if over priced. There were some minor problems with the power button and "cracks" but I didn't have any of those and new designs and technology often have at least minor problems as manufacturing works out the problems. Still there was a lot of effort and money put into keeping them going by Cube owners with new processors and "flashed" PC video cards.
For it's time it was a good machine with just enough internal expansion to fit most users needs. I say that because most users never put in a PCI card. Still internal expansion was there with the AGP slot and processor daughter card and many people kept them going for quite a while. It would have been nice to have 1 PCI slot as well, but I don't think that killed it.
The main problem with the Cube is that it was over priced. The low end PM was selling for $1499 or $1599 when the Cube was released at $1799 if I recall correctly. The Cube should have been priced at $1299, and if it were then it would have been a successful product. They may have even had success at $1499, but $1799 was too much. The economy had something to do with it as well, it was released in 2000 during the last recession and right after the big spending blitz for Y2K fears. I know my company was planning on ordering at least 10 for the design department in early 2001 that was put on hold that year and when the order went through a little over a year later they were no longer available. I believe that the production department had some as well which would have been for 20-40 cubes.
Comments
I loved the cube . And i still feel you old luddites are splitting hairs .
Except for the shape box vs rect . they both are small computers with no head .
After the cube was no more apple made the mini .
Long after, and there's no connection between the two, except that they are both "small."
BTW, do you even know what a "Luddite" is?
The reason why marketing was a major culprit is because Apple didn't make it known to the buying public at large just what this machine was. It was like buying a pig in a poke. Or better, a silk purse in a pigs ear.
It didn't seem to have as much value as the price indicated, because people didn't know just how complex and versatile it was. Some makers had video cards for it and other internal upgrades in the short lifetime it had. But if it was better known, more would have been seen, and more people would have bought it.
The other problem as we've said, was price. More than a few of us at the time had said that they should have had both G3 and G4 models out. The G4 was an expensive processor at the time, and Apple positioned this at the performance end of their products. If the economic situation was better then, it might have succeeded, but it wasn't.
It was like the Edsel, a great machine, at a bad time.
Ouch. Actually the Edsel was no great technological wonder, and it was spectacularly ugly.
Anyway, you could write essentially the same requiem for any failed product. The premise being that you can sell anything, provided the marketing is done right. I don't think this is necessarily true. Taking your example, the Edsel wasn't going to sell no matter what Ford did to market it. It just wasn't a car people wanted.
.............
It was like the Edsel, a great machine, at a bad time.
There was nothing at all good about the Cube. Revisionist hitories can not change that one bit. Take out the iPhone and we might see Apples success rate with bew producxs. To be 59% if they are lucky.
Dave
There was nothing at all good about the Cube. Revisionist hitories can not change that one bit. Take out the iPhone and we might see Apples success rate with bew producxs. To be 59% if they are lucky.
Dave
That's..... an interesting figure. Can you show your work?
That is not the point. Running iPhone apps in a tablet is like buying a rig to toy with Paint
EDIT: I DO NOT mean that iPhone apps shouldn't be supported, but using iPhone OS on it just for that is crappy thinking.
Correct. Apps are written for specific devices, and apps cannot suddenly work on a larger device. They would have to largely be rewritten and any custom graphics used in them would need to be recreated.
i almost believed the story until i saw the bad videos. so we're supposed to believe that this individual got their hands on some prototype tablet hardware but they couldn't manage to pull their camera back 3 inches to reveal the bezel, the frame, the thickness and all other tablety things. no one cares about the gui. we already have been using this gui on the iphone for 2 years now you moron. the pacing was also bad. it looks like they rehearsed with that animation only twice before rolling camera.
I think the videos were of a dev kit and not the final hardware.
That's..... an interesting figure. Can you show your work?
He could, but mere mortals such as ourselves would never comprehend it.
Anyhow, I've now changed my mind. The Cube was a terrible machine, which is why I used one for seven years.
I think the videos were of a dev kit and not the final hardware.
Unfortunately, that still doesn't explain the obvious timing issues and fake "touch screen."
The problem I?ve personally had with yours and others mockups is that they all had Mac OS X on a small touchscreen display. The idea of a tablet in and of itself isn?t crazy, but it needs to have an OS interface that is well adapted for that type of computing. It?s only been very recent in the tablet rumours that we?ve heard about and seen mockups that actually aren?t trying to shoehorn Mac OS X into the mythical device (or making it just an expanded display for the iPhone OS X).
That's why they are redoing snow leopard for it!!!
Ha! Advice from Internet tough guys - I love it...
And we come to the crux of your issue - shoddy assumptions. Have you learned nothing from Apple in the post-iPod era? They are hardly predictable and they know what they are doing.
It is amusing to read posts like yours tho... more so for the inevitable silence from the chicken littles such as yourself after the device is released an becomes a runaway success.
Clearly you are far more interested in revealing your own biases than you are understanding what others are saying. As I have outlined in this thread already, it is my view that Apple will not bring to market a glorified iPod Touch costing more than most laptops.
Everything right now is speculation and I am commenting on that s;peculation since that's all there is. I happen to be impressed, in fact, with how thorough Apple has been in developing assorted products. If you were paying attention, you'd realize as much.
Where did the hundreds a month come from? I pay $71 a month for the most part. With iPhone I got rid of my old phone line, my dial up service provider and my cell phone account. In the end my average monthly bill was only a few dollars more.
Not bad and around here (Rochester NY) my service is just as good or better than the old Verison account. Further customer service at the store was one hell of a lot better. At least so far it has been a better experience.
Around here I hardly ever see an iPod making use of a hot spot. That might have something to do with not many of them being available and of good quality though. All in all 3G is well worth having. The iPhone is a fantastic little E-Mail machine and the net access can't be beat. My surprise was how much I would put it to use after getting it, 3G performance can be very addictive.
No one wouldn't do that but it is also why I wouldn't be surprised if the iPod line doesn't expand to include a model with a slightly bigger screen. Even a small expansion in screen size would make for a much more uasable device. We are talking something here that could remain in the pocket like iPhone yet offer up a better visual experience.
All that being said ten inches is still to big in my mind. I just don't see people carrying that sized device around comfortably.
I live in Canada and here, data rates are very high. It's a much costlier proposition on this side of the border. Besides every household is different. There are folks in my household, not me mind you, who would not be comfotable with losing their land line.
That's why choice is such a great thing and I'm not alone in preferring the Touch to the iPhone for monetary reasons.
Like you, I am puzzled over the decision to go to 10 inches if in fact that is the route Apple takes. It's overkill, in my view if this is intended to be Touch-like but with an enhanced Internet experience, etc. I like the Touch. I ended up using it more than I thought I might but it by no means an ideal browser.
That's all the more reason to suspect that Apple, if it is looking to bring out a device with a 10-inch screen, is not thinking in terms of an ideal Internet browser. Something somewhat larger than the Touch but nowhere close to the 10-inch range, would have made more sense. It should be kept in mind, also, that the bigger the screen the greater the battery drain, so Apple must have something we're not thinking of in mind to be willing to make that trade-off. This is going to be a very anticipated product, especially if Apple doesn't release it untiil next year. Myself, I think the odds are against the tablet being introduced next month. Apple has a major overhaul of the OS about to come to market and of course the annual iPod refresh. It doesn't need one more thing, so to speak, to maintain momentum. Early 2010 is a more likely time frame for this device's debut.
Ouch. Actually the Edsel was no great technological wonder, and it was spectacularly ugly.
Anyway, you could write essentially the same requiem for any failed product. The premise being that you can sell anything, provided the marketing is done right. I don't think this is necessarily true. Taking your example, the Edsel wasn't going to sell no matter what Ford did to market it. It just wasn't a car people wanted.
It was actually an excellent car. But it was a luxury model introduced in the middle of a recession.
I only partly agree with you there.
There was nothing at all good about the Cube. Revisionist hitories can not change that one bit. Take out the iPhone and we might see Apples success rate with bew producxs. To be 59% if they are lucky.
Dave
Then state some real facts about it that were so bad. Your first post showed that you didn't know it had a PCI bus. What else do you know.
It's ok, I'll wait until you look it up.
It was actually an excellent car. But it was a luxury model introduced in the middle of a recession.
I only partly agree with you there.
It had a lot of gadgetry, some of which didn't work very well. And the styling was bizarre.
Actually, thinking about it this way, your analogy works better for me. The Cube was a bit too much novelty for a bit too much money. So was the Edsel.
It had a lot of gadgetry, some of which didn't work very well. And the styling was bizarre.
Actually, thinking about it this way, your analogy works better for me. The Cube was a bit too much novelty for a bit too much money. So was the Edsel.
We can agree to disagree on this.
We can agree to disagree on this.
I'm not sure I know which part, but okay.
I'm certainly not going to make you defend the aesthetics of the Edsel.
Then state some real facts about it that were so bad. Your first post showed that you didn't know it had a PCI bus. What else do you know.
If that bus doesn't conform to common standards it isn't much of a feature. When I think of expansion buses I think of plugging in standard cards with any I/O ports easily accessible.
It's ok, I'll wait until you look it up.
Wait a long time then! It doesn't change the fact that the Cube was rejected by the community immediately upon it's arrival. That simply due to it's poor value.
Dave
It had a lot of gadgetry, some of which didn't work very well. And the styling was bizarre.
Are you talking about the Cube or the Edsel here. I guess it doesn't matter as the statements apply to both.
Actually, thinking about it this way, your analogy works better for me. The Cube was a bit too much novelty for a bit too much money. So was the Edsel.
I see the Cube as possibly Apples best example of form over function. For people looking for function it was way to expensive. Interestingly it is defended by owners in the same way AIR is. Apparently some just take joy in struggling with minimal solutions.
Dave
For it's time it was a good machine with just enough internal expansion to fit most users needs. I say that because most users never put in a PCI card. Still internal expansion was there with the AGP slot and processor daughter card and many people kept them going for quite a while. It would have been nice to have 1 PCI slot as well, but I don't think that killed it.
The main problem with the Cube is that it was over priced. The low end PM was selling for $1499 or $1599 when the Cube was released at $1799 if I recall correctly. The Cube should have been priced at $1299, and if it were then it would have been a successful product. They may have even had success at $1499, but $1799 was too much. The economy had something to do with it as well, it was released in 2000 during the last recession and right after the big spending blitz for Y2K fears. I know my company was planning on ordering at least 10 for the design department in early 2001 that was put on hold that year and when the order went through a little over a year later they were no longer available. I believe that the production department had some as well which would have been for 20-40 cubes.
http://www.ifun.de/content/view/5725/2/