or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by 11thIndian

I'm really surprised to not see more articles/discussions like this after the launch of 10.7. To put it in the most simplified terms, if you're naming your OS releases after big cats, shouldn't Lion logically be the "last" release of it's kind, as the "King of the beasts?". This is an enormously simple observation to put forward as evidence; but really... what do you call the next release after Lion? Do you switch animals? Or is this the end of the line for OSX as...
...and within 6 months the iPad 3 will be out (and perhaps iOS6 as well). So they'll have entirely new benchmark to be measured against.
It was proven to be bullshit the same day fcp.co posted it. Why this guy's statement was been given any credence or merit is completely beyond me. And he jumped in the same day it was published (November 25th) and told them himself they were wrong. I've already had it out with fcp.co about their reporting on this, but shame on AppleInsider for relinking and spreading this garbage. A guy in a video said it, so it must be true!
I think they're fine with it. The ONLY feature which benefits from 16:9 directly is movie watching, and that assumes the content you're watching isn't 4:3 or 2.35:1. For every other task- web browsing, books, magazines, etc. 4:3 has always felt better to me. If the iPad was a video device FIRST, then 16:9 would be the preferred aspect ratio. But it's only ONE of it's tasks, so it doesn't make sense to favour video to the detriment of all the others.
Of course, the ONLY reason any of this discussion has any meaning is to see how the market breaks down, and how that changes over time- because that will dictate to corporations where the consumer is putting their money. So in the end it's irrelevant if people think an iPad is a PC- If people are buying iPads as a PC replacement, then it's in the same general market because someone is spending money on one rather than the other. As would a smartphone if that's all the...
No. Because I think we can all agree that a PC is not a mono use device. I think people are getting all jumbled in this argument as to what the goal is- which is to define the appropriate market segment for the iPad. Smartphones can do a lot of the same basic tasks, but is anyone WANTING to pitch smartphones into the PC category? No. They have their own market segment that people are jockeying for position in. In the PC market, the goal is general multipurpose...
At the beginning Apple was positioning it between a smartphone and a desktop/laptop, and it REQUIRED you to sync with an existing PC for it to even function. With "PC Free" in iOS5, I think this distinction becomes even more murky. And you can't deny that some of this is marketing speak. The term "PC" has a lot of baggage attached to it. It means something complicated and imposing to a large group of people. By positioning it as a "PostPC" product, Apple is hoping to...
iPads are all the PC a lot of people need. The truth is that the form and function of the PC has changed to service the user in this case. Rather than people being saddled with a lot of computer they don't want or need just to have the benefit of basic functions like email, web browsing, and video chatting. Just because it doesn't suit EVERYONE'S needs as a PC doesn't change what it is. I have a wife, a kid, and a dog. So a Smart Car doesn't work for me, but it...
Why would they have to be cheaper? Apple never competes primarily on price, but on features and usability. Apple products are premium products, so someone walking into Walmart and looking for the cheapest 50" TV are NOT Apple's market here. But for those who have a large investment in the iTunes ecosystem, the built in functionality would certainly be worth a premium.Regardless of when [or if] these integrated Apple Televisions come to market, I think the biggest...
Apple's solution to this would seem elementary. Like with the iPhone line, when the iPad3 is released next year, continue to offer the iPad2 at a reduced price. A 16GB iPad2 priced at $350 [$150 off the current MSRP] would certainly expose Apple to a broader market. Why would Apple put it's energy into developing an entirely new low cost version of the iPad? Apple will never try to compete directly with the Kindle Fire on price. Amazon and Apple's revenue model is...
New Posts  All Forums: