probably won't cost that much in USA without a contract. we'll see. but you're right, apparently the competition cannot meet the iPad's price for a 10" screen product.
It's been announced down here in the antipodes for A$1k. The 3G iPad ranges from A$799 to A$1049. [A1$=US$0.97]
1. RIM will struggle to create a new software platform.
2. Half the size of an iPad is the wrong size for a tablet.
Balsillie responds by saying.
1. 7" *will* become successful.
2. People want Flash.
Hmm...
Does that strike anyone as odd?
On the second point he does not argue the benefits of the 7" form factor. He just says it "will" become successful, as if some clairvoyant has assured him of this. Okay - let's accept that.
I think it will be "successful". If all the other manufacturers are only making 7" tablets because they can't compete with Apple's price points on the 9.7", then the 7" will sell to all those who, for whatever reason, don't want to buy an iPad.
I bought by my Thinkpad T510 loaded, with discrete NVidia graphics and a 1920x180 95 gamut display for $1200CAD taxes in. Macbook pro cant touch it. There are alot of crappy cheap PC's out there but if your willing to spend a little more you can get some nice hardware.
Itunes might be great on a Mac but its borderline bloatware on a PC, 200mb download for a media player! How many services need to run in the background Apple!
I dont even want to touch your agrument of Market Capitalization and your elusion of value, Apple skyrockets and all of a sudden everybody works on Wall Street.
"Build products that people want to buy", is a simplistic argument coined, by a consumerism movement in the North America to simply rationalize domestic business failure and wealth transfer. Your better than that, dont be a carrier for someone else's BS.
Success has alot more to it than creating products people want, its also convincing people that they want your product. Which Apple has done very succsessfully, sublimely, while leaving them with the illusion that they are still a consumer who is in control, even though their purchase was irrational.
You talk like you know what you are talking about, but you don't. No purchase is rational. Humans are not rational animals, they are rationalizing ones, and if you understand this you ll figure out your fallacious reasoning.
1. RIM will struggle to create a new software platform.
2. Half the size of an iPad is the wrong size for a tablet.
Balsillie responds by saying.
1. 7" *will* become successful.
2. People want Flash.
Hmm...
Does that strike anyone as odd?
On the second point he does not argue the benefits of the 7" form factor. He just says it "will" become successful, as if some clairvoyant has assured him of this. Okay - let's accept that.
But the first point is completely ignored by the RIM CEO.
RIM has presented a vaporware tablet, showing only renders and non-working mock ups. RIM's recent product usability has been poor. RIM claimed that they can create a breakthrough tablet device with an all-new software platform. Jobs questions their ability to deliver on that.
So does Balsillie defend their efforts?
Nope.
This article on RIM is very good and really worth a read.
Lol!!!! What the hell is causalness? Does he mean causality? It's one thing to twist grammar around to pretend you have something to say, but inventing words too, pulling them straight out of one's... ahem... subconscious.
I've only used the iPad at an Apple store and to me the weight lends to the feeling of quality. But a 7" iPad would definitely have a 'cute factor' going for it that would appeal to many at 2/3 the price. I'm not sure about the issue of portability. A 7" iPad would be too big for a pocket, but it's no problem for a woman with a handbag nor a man with a man-bag or a rucksack.
Software written for OSX runs on more than three different-sized screens. I'm not a screen-res techie, but why is this fact not a problem when SJ seems to think it is with respect to iOS being available on three screen sizes?
Lol!!!! What the hell is causalness? Does he mean causality? It's one thing to twist grammar around to pretend you have something to say, but inventing words too, pulling them straight out of one's... ahem... subconscious.
You need to practice healthnicity to experience casualness.. and exhibit athleticness...
... As they say, hoi polloi to you! (where are the mondegreens when we need them?)
IPad is a device with extremely limited functionality that has to be supplemented with very expensive add ons. Be it the cellular modem or the camera connection kit. In the end iPad is one expensive kit.
Quote:
Well if you look at iPhone that advantage isn't being passed on to consummers. IPad of course doesn't have competition right now but you would have to be delusional to think it is a good buy.
Quote:
The real Apple tax is convincing people that their high prices are in actuality a bargain. Snake Oil salesman could learn a thing or two from Apple.
Flash is a lost cause, but I find myself agreeing about the 7" tablet. I would love to ditch the too small iPhone and the too big iPad and just use one mid-sized device. It would suit my needs better than either of the two current alternatives and I know i'm not alone. I've heard the same thing from far too many people for us all to be wrong.
I also find that Steve's remark about the sandpaper is just rude and juvenile. It's also insulting in that it makes no sense to say a 7" iPad is too small for fingers when the iPhone is even smaller. The only serious testing that's been done (admittedly before the iPad arrived) says that thumb-typing in portrait mode on the iPhone is one of the fastest methods of input available. I know from personal experience that I can type much faster on an iPhone than I can on an iPad, simply because the iPad with it's gigantic side bezels is just too large to effectively thumb type on at all.
For those of us that want a small, efficient portable computer but don't necessarily need a phone, or a TV watching machine, a 7" tablet is the sweet spot. RIM's tablet will no doubt be a gigantic piece of junk and the Galaxy Tab is looking to be a loser as well, so Steve is right when he says these devices will likely fail in the market, but being very, very disingenuous when he implies this will be due to some quintessential problem with screen real estate.
I have a lot of iPhone apps with more buttons in the menu bar and much smaller targets for my fingers than Pages or Numbers on the iPad and they work very well indeed. IMO Mr. Jobs is out and out lying about some of this stuff and it's really quite apparent this time that he is. Perhaps the reality distortion field is finally breaking down. I know it has for me.
My initial reaction to Jobs' sandpaper comment was similar to what you're saying, namely that the comment seems to condemn Apple's own products considering the size and resolution of the iPhone/Touch. But I'm willing to give Jobs the benefit of the doubt in that he may be talking about developments on the touchscreen front that we're not privy to. In other words, what he's referring to hasn't happened yet.
I think it would be fair to let this play out before we accuse Jobs of any distorting. Apple, clearly, has no intention of releasing a 7" device. That's the form factor the competition is opting for. Now, clearly, to determine which approach is preferred by us consumers we need to have both form factors evolve to their potential. The iPad is in its infancy and the 7" competition is still only on the drawing board.
Let's see what the iPad looks like when Apple releases Version 2 or 3 and developers have brought out some interesting software able to take advantage of a 9.7" touchscreen. Also, let's see what everybody else's 7" devices are like once they have been developed and some decent software is available for them.
Granted this buys Jobs a solid year, if not longer, but at the same time, we're making comments about hypothetical products based on what we have available to us at this time. If the MP3 evolution is anything to go by, I would advise against insisting right now that Jobs has it wrong.
I kind of wondered where SJ was coming from on that one. If 7" is too small for a touch interface isn't that sort of a problem for an iPhone and iPod Touch as well. I think a 7" iPad would be pretty cool. I hope they'll make one someday.
I read Steve's full comments. It didn't sound as though he were speaking about 7" being inadequate for a touch interface, but rather apple wouldn't introduce a 7" tablet unless there was a way to do so without requiring developers to recode their tablet apps.
Seemed more like he was speaking about resolution independence(!!!) Regardless, I expect we'll see an ipad mini with the same resolution as the current ipad in the future.
I kind of wondered where SJ was coming from on that one. If 7" is too small for a touch interface isn't that sort of a problem for an iPhone and iPod Touch as well. I think a 7" iPad would be pretty cool. I hope they'll make one someday.
SJ famously said that he couldn't see consumers wanting video on a device as small as an iPod, he then gave us video.....on an iPod.
That point is that a considerable portion of iPads power budget goes to lighting up the screen. You don't take this into account below and then mis on other issues.
You make assumptions above that aren't supported by currently shipping hardware. In fact iPhone 4 ships with more RAM. IPad with its rather large PC board also ships with plenty of free space inside its case. Given all of this info building a seven inch class device with even more battery life should be easy.
It should be fairly easy for Apple to pack the same capacity into a seven inch machine. As to power usage of the back light it is not a given what the usage will be like. Power could be significantly less as they improve LED back lighting.
Or not! Besides whos to say that theydon't have a process shrunk A4 ready or a new Cortex A9 based chip ready to go. Remember we are talking a future product here which would likely be based on future hardware.
So where are your facts. You gloss right over the main issue here which is power to the screen. You say they can't cut it in half but then don't back up your statements. .
Nice of you to ignore everything I said.
I specifically said that we would pretend that the 7" screen used half of the power of the 10" screen (even though it would use something more than half.
RAM? Since it's a hypothetical product, no one knows how much RAM it would have, but RAM usage is insignificant.
You will also find that the iPad has very little free space inside the unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
The 10" iPad with its 4:3 aspect screen measures 5.75" x 7.75" with 44.5 square inches of area.
a 7" tablet with a 16:9 aspect screen will measure approximately 3.5" x 6" with 21 square inches of area.
the smaller size has only one big advantage - it will weigh about half as much as the iPad, and the iPad is tiring to hold up with one hand for an extended period.
No, it won't weigh 1/2. The screen size will be 1/2 the size, so call it half the weight. The CPU, SOC, RAM, etc would be unchanged. Battery life would have to be reduced, but if it's only 1/2 the battery weight, then battery life will suffer badly (since CPU, SOC, etc usage would be roughly constant).
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72
the article you mentioned very clearly states the $150 million worth in non-voting Apple shares was, in fact, an investment made by Microsoft. also, Apple purchased NeXT because the Copeland project was a bust. Apple lost around $850 million in 1996 and over one (1) billion dollars in 1997 mostly due to the friendly acquisition of NeXT.
so, how did Apple manage to have $1.2 billion in cash after such heavy losses? software sells (despite having around 5% of the home PC market) and Microsoft of course
There's an old saying: "How do you get $1 million in the xxx business? Start with $2 million". Apple's $1.2 B in 1997 was the result of having much more cash in the early 90's and dropping through the mid-90's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
You obviously don't have my eyesight or my lack of income.
I would love to have an iPad, but because of it's large screen and bezels it will never be a go-everywhere device. I already have internet most places I go and a cell phone for in between so all I need is a 3G enabled information appliance that's small enough to take with me all the time. An iNotePad with a 6" screen would do perfectly.
Apple, however, wouldn't like that. By forcing people to choose portability or usability they've managed to sell you two iDevices. If they also offered a 6" device with many of the UI benefits of the iPad in a truly portable package maybe they'd have only sold you one.
To me the iPad is a living room device and I don't need ultra light weight or long battery life there. My wife and I looked at the iPad for her to use on the couch, but went with a used MacBook instead. It cost less and does far more including playing Flash video from Facebook that iOS devices don't. I personally hate Flash and use blockers on my Mac, but my wife would be mighty upset if she couldn't see the latest video of our kid at daycare.
So the iPad isn't for you. No one ever claimed that it was for everyone. Since when does failure to meet YOUR needs constitute a failure?
Usually I’m not a fan of posting large images, especially when that same image is posted repeatedly, but piot’s post was funny and poignant. Awesome post piot.
Apple does make good products,,, But Jobs is a big wanker, his comments where childish and irrelevant,
I hope he stirred up a hornets nest all the better for us consumers,
and anyone who doesnt think apple can fall,, have a good look at where GM is right now, they had the same attitude , we are on top, deserve to be on top, and will always be on top
and yes I agree Itunes is bloated and about the least user friendly media player out there
I read Steve's full comments. It didn't sound as though he were speaking about 7" being inadequate for a touch interface, but rather apple wouldn't introduce a 7" tablet unless there was a way to do so without requiring developers to recode their tablet apps.
Seemed more like he was speaking about resolution independence(!!!) Regardless, I expect we'll see an ipad mini with the same resolution as the current ipad in the future.
That is prescient!
Resolution independence is a necessary part of the solution. For some apps it will be enough.
The iPhone app Koi Pond looks as good at 2x on the iPad as it does in 1x on the iPhone. The main reason is resolution independence within the app -- provided by OpenGL. A secondary reason is the controls (touch areas) were designed for the small screen and scale up well. An app written like this would, likely, scale well to any (reasonable) size and aspect ratio.
The main (play) screens of many games scale quite well-- Angry Birds, for example.
However, resolution/scaling is only part of the problem. There also are considerations for:
-- the desktop (maybe screentop or perspective is a better word) - the home screen and subsequent screens
-- navigation among them
-- a file system presentation, and navigation within it
-- App views, their content and navigation
The latter, currently, is the biggest problem:
1) Most app views designed for the small screen to not scale up well
-- they look ugly
-- images are poor resolution (blocks replace pixels)
-- text and controls have jaggies (no anti-aliasing)
-- screen real estate is wasted, rather, not exploited
2) Most app views designed for the large screen to not scale down well
-- they look crowded - intimidating, actually
-- images, often, are too small to be recognizable.
-- text and controls are, often, too small to be readable and touch-manipulatable
What is needed is a new display-size-independent way of displaying and navigating app views and their perspective of the content (the screentop can be considered as the system perspective) .
I highlight the word perspective for a reason -- i believe it is the key to the solution.
We need to be able to design our apps so they will scale well -- anywhere from an iPod Nano watch, to a massive video wall -- and all points in between: iPhone; small tablet; larger tablets; big-assed tables,; that 50" HDTV; those large touch displays coming into vogue by TV channels, say, presenting election results, traffic, weather, etc.
I believe what is needed is a different kind of 3D approach-- where everything (virtually) is on the display. Items of interest can be brought to the forefront -- into perspective, if you will.
When selected, these items automatically enlarge to show greater detail -- and adjacent (related) items are all around (if not displayed) off the screen.
You can manipulate these related items (pinch, flick and scroll) in 2D as we do now -- think of a giant CoverFlow with pinch.
Or, you can change perspective to another item in your 3D space -- kinda' like a 3D TimeMachine display.
Said another way, we should be able to design apps based on the content we want to be available to the user at any point in time.
The user should be able to change perspective in 3 dimensions to suit his needs.
The "system" is responsible for navigating, managing and displaying this content in 3D space -- as it moves off and on the screen, fading from view into the background -- coming into view in the foreground.
Comments
probably won't cost that much in USA without a contract. we'll see. but you're right, apparently the competition cannot meet the iPad's price for a 10" screen product.
It's been announced down here in the antipodes for A$1k. The 3G iPad ranges from A$799 to A$1049. [A1$=US$0.97]
Here's a summary.
Jobs says:
1. RIM will struggle to create a new software platform.
2. Half the size of an iPad is the wrong size for a tablet.
Balsillie responds by saying.
1. 7" *will* become successful.
2. People want Flash.
Hmm...
Does that strike anyone as odd?
On the second point he does not argue the benefits of the 7" form factor. He just says it "will" become successful, as if some clairvoyant has assured him of this. Okay - let's accept that.
I think it will be "successful". If all the other manufacturers are only making 7" tablets because they can't compete with Apple's price points on the 9.7", then the 7" will sell to all those who, for whatever reason, don't want to buy an iPad.
same question right back at ya...just flip it around.
I have owned every model of iphone going back to the original right up to ip4.... until I saw the light.
I am giving my opinion based on experience of OWNING both platforms and using them for long periods of time.
your opinion is based on what...?
blind loyalty, heresay or is it that pesky distortion reality field again?
Whats your opinion about the spherical Earth and the landing on the moon?
I bought by my Thinkpad T510 loaded, with discrete NVidia graphics and a 1920x180 95 gamut display for $1200CAD taxes in. Macbook pro cant touch it. There are alot of crappy cheap PC's out there but if your willing to spend a little more you can get some nice hardware.
Itunes might be great on a Mac but its borderline bloatware on a PC, 200mb download for a media player! How many services need to run in the background Apple!
I dont even want to touch your agrument of Market Capitalization and your elusion of value, Apple skyrockets and all of a sudden everybody works on Wall Street.
"Build products that people want to buy", is a simplistic argument coined, by a consumerism movement in the North America to simply rationalize domestic business failure and wealth transfer. Your better than that, dont be a carrier for someone else's BS.
Success has alot more to it than creating products people want, its also convincing people that they want your product. Which Apple has done very succsessfully, sublimely, while leaving them with the illusion that they are still a consumer who is in control, even though their purchase was irrational.
You talk like you know what you are talking about, but you don't. No purchase is rational. Humans are not rational animals, they are rationalizing ones, and if you understand this you ll figure out your fallacious reasoning.
Here's a summary.
Jobs says:
1. RIM will struggle to create a new software platform.
2. Half the size of an iPad is the wrong size for a tablet.
Balsillie responds by saying.
1. 7" *will* become successful.
2. People want Flash.
Hmm...
Does that strike anyone as odd?
On the second point he does not argue the benefits of the 7" form factor. He just says it "will" become successful, as if some clairvoyant has assured him of this. Okay - let's accept that.
But the first point is completely ignored by the RIM CEO.
RIM has presented a vaporware tablet, showing only renders and non-working mock ups. RIM's recent product usability has been poor. RIM claimed that they can create a breakthrough tablet device with an all-new software platform. Jobs questions their ability to deliver on that.
So does Balsillie defend their efforts?
Nope.
This article on RIM is very good and really worth a read.
http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.co...berry-and.html
It includes this awesome quote from Balsillie.
Hmmm....
C.
Lol!!!! What the hell is causalness? Does he mean causality? It's one thing to twist grammar around to pretend you have something to say, but inventing words too, pulling them straight out of one's... ahem... subconscious.
I'm amazed that the Droid X gets such long battery life. It has a HUGE screen. Apple could learn something about design trade-offs from it.
Hahaha...
Lower resolution and LARGER screen vs the smaller screen and HIGHER resolution.
And the iPhone beats the Droid X in the charts.
Think logic please
Software written for OSX runs on more than three different-sized screens. I'm not a screen-res techie, but why is this fact not a problem when SJ seems to think it is with respect to iOS being available on three screen sizes?
Lol!!!! What the hell is causalness? Does he mean causality? It's one thing to twist grammar around to pretend you have something to say, but inventing words too, pulling them straight out of one's... ahem... subconscious.
You need to practice healthnicity to experience casualness.. and exhibit athleticness...
... As they say, hoi polloi to you! (where are the mondegreens when we need them?)
.
I'm sorry. I love Apple, but Steve's comments were unnecessary. When you're winning you should remain classy.
I'm with you there. It was gratuitous in tone if not fact.
IPad is a device with extremely limited functionality that has to be supplemented with very expensive add ons. Be it the cellular modem or the camera connection kit. In the end iPad is one expensive kit.
Well if you look at iPhone that advantage isn't being passed on to consummers. IPad of course doesn't have competition right now but you would have to be delusional to think it is a good buy.
The real Apple tax is convincing people that their high prices are in actuality a bargain. Snake Oil salesman could learn a thing or two from Apple.
Flash is a lost cause, but I find myself agreeing about the 7" tablet. I would love to ditch the too small iPhone and the too big iPad and just use one mid-sized device. It would suit my needs better than either of the two current alternatives and I know i'm not alone. I've heard the same thing from far too many people for us all to be wrong.
I also find that Steve's remark about the sandpaper is just rude and juvenile. It's also insulting in that it makes no sense to say a 7" iPad is too small for fingers when the iPhone is even smaller. The only serious testing that's been done (admittedly before the iPad arrived) says that thumb-typing in portrait mode on the iPhone is one of the fastest methods of input available. I know from personal experience that I can type much faster on an iPhone than I can on an iPad, simply because the iPad with it's gigantic side bezels is just too large to effectively thumb type on at all.
For those of us that want a small, efficient portable computer but don't necessarily need a phone, or a TV watching machine, a 7" tablet is the sweet spot. RIM's tablet will no doubt be a gigantic piece of junk and the Galaxy Tab is looking to be a loser as well, so Steve is right when he says these devices will likely fail in the market, but being very, very disingenuous when he implies this will be due to some quintessential problem with screen real estate.
I have a lot of iPhone apps with more buttons in the menu bar and much smaller targets for my fingers than Pages or Numbers on the iPad and they work very well indeed. IMO Mr. Jobs is out and out lying about some of this stuff and it's really quite apparent this time that he is. Perhaps the reality distortion field is finally breaking down. I know it has for me.
My initial reaction to Jobs' sandpaper comment was similar to what you're saying, namely that the comment seems to condemn Apple's own products considering the size and resolution of the iPhone/Touch. But I'm willing to give Jobs the benefit of the doubt in that he may be talking about developments on the touchscreen front that we're not privy to. In other words, what he's referring to hasn't happened yet.
I think it would be fair to let this play out before we accuse Jobs of any distorting. Apple, clearly, has no intention of releasing a 7" device. That's the form factor the competition is opting for. Now, clearly, to determine which approach is preferred by us consumers we need to have both form factors evolve to their potential. The iPad is in its infancy and the 7" competition is still only on the drawing board.
Let's see what the iPad looks like when Apple releases Version 2 or 3 and developers have brought out some interesting software able to take advantage of a 9.7" touchscreen. Also, let's see what everybody else's 7" devices are like once they have been developed and some decent software is available for them.
Granted this buys Jobs a solid year, if not longer, but at the same time, we're making comments about hypothetical products based on what we have available to us at this time. If the MP3 evolution is anything to go by, I would advise against insisting right now that Jobs has it wrong.
I kind of wondered where SJ was coming from on that one. If 7" is too small for a touch interface isn't that sort of a problem for an iPhone and iPod Touch as well. I think a 7" iPad would be pretty cool. I hope they'll make one someday.
I read Steve's full comments. It didn't sound as though he were speaking about 7" being inadequate for a touch interface, but rather apple wouldn't introduce a 7" tablet unless there was a way to do so without requiring developers to recode their tablet apps.
Seemed more like he was speaking about resolution independence(!!!) Regardless, I expect we'll see an ipad mini with the same resolution as the current ipad in the future.
I kind of wondered where SJ was coming from on that one. If 7" is too small for a touch interface isn't that sort of a problem for an iPhone and iPod Touch as well. I think a 7" iPad would be pretty cool. I hope they'll make one someday.
SJ famously said that he couldn't see consumers wanting video on a device as small as an iPod, he then gave us video.....on an iPod.
This (7") isn't over yet.
That point is that a considerable portion of iPads power budget goes to lighting up the screen. You don't take this into account below and then mis on other issues.
You make assumptions above that aren't supported by currently shipping hardware. In fact iPhone 4 ships with more RAM. IPad with its rather large PC board also ships with plenty of free space inside its case. Given all of this info building a seven inch class device with even more battery life should be easy.
It should be fairly easy for Apple to pack the same capacity into a seven inch machine. As to power usage of the back light it is not a given what the usage will be like. Power could be significantly less as they improve LED back lighting.
Or not! Besides whos to say that theydon't have a process shrunk A4 ready or a new Cortex A9 based chip ready to go. Remember we are talking a future product here which would likely be based on future hardware.
So where are your facts. You gloss right over the main issue here which is power to the screen. You say they can't cut it in half but then don't back up your statements. .
Nice of you to ignore everything I said.
I specifically said that we would pretend that the 7" screen used half of the power of the 10" screen (even though it would use something more than half.
RAM? Since it's a hypothetical product, no one knows how much RAM it would have, but RAM usage is insignificant.
You will also find that the iPad has very little free space inside the unit.
The 10" iPad with its 4:3 aspect screen measures 5.75" x 7.75" with 44.5 square inches of area.
a 7" tablet with a 16:9 aspect screen will measure approximately 3.5" x 6" with 21 square inches of area.
the smaller size has only one big advantage - it will weigh about half as much as the iPad, and the iPad is tiring to hold up with one hand for an extended period.
No, it won't weigh 1/2. The screen size will be 1/2 the size, so call it half the weight. The CPU, SOC, RAM, etc would be unchanged. Battery life would have to be reduced, but if it's only 1/2 the battery weight, then battery life will suffer badly (since CPU, SOC, etc usage would be roughly constant).
the article you mentioned very clearly states the $150 million worth in non-voting Apple shares was, in fact, an investment made by Microsoft. also, Apple purchased NeXT because the Copeland project was a bust. Apple lost around $850 million in 1996 and over one (1) billion dollars in 1997 mostly due to the friendly acquisition of NeXT.
so, how did Apple manage to have $1.2 billion in cash after such heavy losses? software sells (despite having around 5% of the home PC market) and Microsoft of course
There's an old saying: "How do you get $1 million in the xxx business? Start with $2 million". Apple's $1.2 B in 1997 was the result of having much more cash in the early 90's and dropping through the mid-90's.
You obviously don't have my eyesight or my lack of income.
I would love to have an iPad, but because of it's large screen and bezels it will never be a go-everywhere device. I already have internet most places I go and a cell phone for in between so all I need is a 3G enabled information appliance that's small enough to take with me all the time. An iNotePad with a 6" screen would do perfectly.
Apple, however, wouldn't like that. By forcing people to choose portability or usability they've managed to sell you two iDevices. If they also offered a 6" device with many of the UI benefits of the iPad in a truly portable package maybe they'd have only sold you one.
To me the iPad is a living room device and I don't need ultra light weight or long battery life there. My wife and I looked at the iPad for her to use on the couch, but went with a used MacBook instead. It cost less and does far more including playing Flash video from Facebook that iOS devices don't. I personally hate Flash and use blockers on my Mac, but my wife would be mighty upset if she couldn't see the latest video of our kid at daycare.
So the iPad isn't for you. No one ever claimed that it was for everyone. Since when does failure to meet YOUR needs constitute a failure?
I also find that Steve's remark about the sandpaper is just rude and juvenile.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Why?
His job is to communicate in clear terms *why* the Apple solution is better.
He is saying in the clearest possible way that you can make screens smaller, but you can't make fingers smaller.
Balsillie's response is just patronising. "7" screens will succeed because they will. "
C.
I hope he stirred up a hornets nest all the better for us consumers,
and anyone who doesnt think apple can fall,, have a good look at where GM is right now, they had the same attitude , we are on top, deserve to be on top, and will always be on top
and yes I agree Itunes is bloated and about the least user friendly media player out there
Want no return on your investment? Okay.
Just annoy us less with your advertisements.
I read Steve's full comments. It didn't sound as though he were speaking about 7" being inadequate for a touch interface, but rather apple wouldn't introduce a 7" tablet unless there was a way to do so without requiring developers to recode their tablet apps.
Seemed more like he was speaking about resolution independence(!!!) Regardless, I expect we'll see an ipad mini with the same resolution as the current ipad in the future.
That is prescient!
Resolution independence is a necessary part of the solution. For some apps it will be enough.
The iPhone app Koi Pond looks as good at 2x on the iPad as it does in 1x on the iPhone. The main reason is resolution independence within the app -- provided by OpenGL. A secondary reason is the controls (touch areas) were designed for the small screen and scale up well. An app written like this would, likely, scale well to any (reasonable) size and aspect ratio.
The main (play) screens of many games scale quite well-- Angry Birds, for example.
However, resolution/scaling is only part of the problem. There also are considerations for:
-- the desktop (maybe screentop or perspective is a better word) - the home screen and subsequent screens
-- navigation among them
-- a file system presentation, and navigation within it
-- App views, their content and navigation
The latter, currently, is the biggest problem:
1) Most app views designed for the small screen to not scale up well
-- they look ugly
-- images are poor resolution (blocks replace pixels)
-- text and controls have jaggies (no anti-aliasing)
-- screen real estate is wasted, rather, not exploited
2) Most app views designed for the large screen to not scale down well
-- they look crowded - intimidating, actually
-- images, often, are too small to be recognizable.
-- text and controls are, often, too small to be readable and touch-manipulatable
What is needed is a new display-size-independent way of displaying and navigating app views and their perspective of the content (the screentop can be considered as the system perspective) .
I highlight the word perspective for a reason -- i believe it is the key to the solution.
We need to be able to design our apps so they will scale well -- anywhere from an iPod Nano watch, to a massive video wall -- and all points in between: iPhone; small tablet; larger tablets; big-assed tables,; that 50" HDTV; those large touch displays coming into vogue by TV channels, say, presenting election results, traffic, weather, etc.
I believe what is needed is a different kind of 3D approach-- where everything (virtually) is on the display. Items of interest can be brought to the forefront -- into perspective, if you will.
When selected, these items automatically enlarge to show greater detail -- and adjacent (related) items are all around (if not displayed) off the screen.
You can manipulate these related items (pinch, flick and scroll) in 2D as we do now -- think of a giant CoverFlow with pinch.
Or, you can change perspective to another item in your 3D space -- kinda' like a 3D TimeMachine display.
Said another way, we should be able to design apps based on the content we want to be available to the user at any point in time.
The user should be able to change perspective in 3 dimensions to suit his needs.
The "system" is responsible for navigating, managing and displaying this content in 3D space -- as it moves off and on the screen, fading from view into the background -- coming into view in the foreground.
.