Microsoft, Nokia, Nintendo take shots at Apple's iPad debut - Page 9

Meh. Unfortunately, statements like that tend to drive the fanboyism to rabid levels. I just get annoyed with misleading statements.

I love my Mac. But increasingly, I am disappointed that my fellow Mac fans seem to give Apple and Steve a pass when they say or do something less than par. You know if Gates or Ballmer had made a statement like that, people on here would have been all over it, about how it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Why can't Jobs be held to the same standard?

But that is the point, even if its an oversized iPod touch (size only), it is an amazing platform precisely because it'll have access to thousands of newly-created apps that take advantage of multitouch on that big screen (instead of the iPhone/iPod Touch size screen). Joe Hewitt just wrote about this on the link I provided in this thread earlier. It's precisely the additional real estate (as well as new multitouch gestures) that will make for many more tools. So when you boil it down, it is the size which leads to more function. The iBook Store and iWork exists for the iPad and not the iPhone precisely because of its size.


Let's divide the market into two. Those who already have a computer (Windows, Mac, Linux), and those who don't. For those who already have a computer (desktop or laptop, doesn't matter), many were looking for a smaller laptop, thus the excitement over netbooks. Apple wants to sell you an iPad instead because most didn't want the smaller laptop to do everything that their other computer could do anyway.

For those who don't, Apple wants to sell you an iPad as something that is simple enough and maintenance-free enough that you will think of it as an appliance and just use it. But the model here is incomplete, as the iPad so far has only been shown to sync to a computer. So it's my belief, Apple will soon allow syncing to its MobileMe cloud or a revamped TimeCapsule-like or AppleTV product.

In either case, Apple also expects that you'll have a cellphone, and Apple wants to sell you an iPhone as your next upgrade. So in Apple's eyes, you'll have an iPhone and an iPad. Or an iPhone and an iPad and a computer (preferably a Mac).

Why is it not an apples-to-apples comparison?

Are you just trying to say there's an issue because Jobs redefined what mobile devices are? Jobs specifically qualified his statement by saying he was including laptops and only discussing revenue. He didn't try to fool anyone.

I am disappointed because I am more pessimistic than you. I just don't see it happening. I really believe that the only reason flash isn't on the idevices is because Apple does not want a competitive threat to its app store. Who would download games from the app store if Farmville is a click away? Or TV shows from iTunes, if you could just go to NBC instead?

That's why these restrictions concern me. And I don't think Apple will adjust course (at least as long as Jobs is in power). They'll keep the restrictions on. And hope that more sites develop without Flash. Or that users will just accept being able to use only the browser that's provided. I wish the networks would call Apple's bluff and build up websites that are fully compatible with the iPhone and allow users to get all the TV shows while bypassing iTunes. At the end of the day, we know that however locked the device is, it'll sell a million or two easily in a year. That's why Apple won't really care. And sadly, that really cripples some of the potential of the device....guess I may not be able to ditch that old laptop after all! I just play Mafia Wars too much!

Interesting take. And I agree that they are trying to use the iPad to lower the barrier of entry into the Apple ecosystem while hooking you in so that you buy entirely into the ecosystem. It'll be interesting to see if it works. Though I do think we are far more likely to see these combinations: iphone/iPad/Windows PC or iPhone/iPad/MacBook.

I do appreciate the iPad for what it is: a really awesome media consumption device. Which for most of the population these days, is a fairly satisfactory replacement for a computer.

i will not be shocked to have ipad versions of those games ready by release time. linking into your facebook account so you can flip back and forth as you wish.

in fact, unless they cut it recently the CS5 beta had a flash to iphone app convertor. so these companies get their hands on the betas and in a day they would have their app, and Apple is going to be pushing to get as many ipad native apps and upgrades ready for the launch as they can. they probably doubled staff to push approvals and are doing everything they can to encourage developers to update rather than be happy with black box and such.


keeping in mind that no one has touched one. Why not wait until you actually hold one to talk about what it can and can't do and is it good enough for you or not.

fuck flash

Umm, it's already happening. Search for it in Google and you'll find stories in multiple newspapers and magazines about iPod Touch being given to even 5 year olds. I should add that my 10 year old is waiting for his iPod touch (at least, I'm making him wait for the one with the camera.) He's already asked me to sell all his DS games so he can use the money to buy more App Store games.

By the way, Apple sold about 17m iPod touch units worldwide over the last 9 months of 2009. Nintendo sold about 23.5m units of both DS Lite and DSi worldwide over the same time period.

Oops. I've already accepted that Flash will never come to iPad or iPhone for whatever reason.

So read my earlier post as having already excluded Flash.

My neighbor's kid is 5 and he's got an iPod Touch and loves it.

One other thing I just looked up: The iPod touch began sales in Sep 2007. In its first 27 months (thru 12-09), it sold 33m units worldwide. The DS family (DS, DS Lite, DSi) began sales in Nov 2004. In its first 26 months, it sold 35m units worldwide. So the sales trajectories are very similar.

If you allow for the iPhone, Apple is way ahead - 75m in 30 months (vs. 40m for DS).

I think you're off base here, and not just by a little bit. For at least two reasons.

Firstly, the App store and the iBook store, as extensions of iTMS, exist to help Apple sell hardware. That's their business model, and it's little if any different from how they sell computers. Mac OSX exists to sell Macs. iWork and iLife exist to sell Macs. Do you really believe that the $79 price tag on iLife and iWork covers development and maintenance costs plus Apple's famous 30 something percent margin?

It's no different on the mobile side. Apple maintains that they operate iTMS at slightly above break even. This question was again asked and answered at the earnings conference call last Monday. Check it out for yourself. Most of the revenues from iTMS go to the content providers. Apple's take is enough to cover their infrastructure and give them a small profit for their effort. The main point, from Apples's perspective, is to maintain an ecosystem that adds perceived value to iPods, iPhones, and now the iPad.

There are other benefits as well, such as enabling Apple to better control the user experience by not allowing apps that would degrade performance or create security risks, etc, but this is an aside to your theory regarding Flash.

Think about this, if Apple's primary intent was to make money from iTMS, why then were they so resistant to allowing the music companies to raise the price of music downloads? Apple wants as much content as they can get, and they want it to be affordable. They even promote free apps on the app store. Why? To sell more iPhones and iPod Touches, that's why.

The second point is your forced correlation of Flash with free content. In reality, there is none. Flash can be used to stream video content for fee just as easily as it can be used to stream video content for free. I have no doubt that there is plenty of Flash content being delivered for profit. The other side of the coin is that Flash is not required to stream video at all. Microsoft has streaming technology and Real probably does as well (if they're still in business). Neither of these solutions likely work with iPhone OS, but Quicktime server sure does. You can license QT server and stream free video to your heart's content.

I'm sure Apple will be more than happy to sell you an iPhone, iPod Touch, and soon, an iPad, for you to do nothing but surf free sites with. They make their money selling hardware.

Yes, we are. Do you have a point?

And you would get the Moron of the Year award if you buy nonsense like that. I am sure you didn't buy the tag line. So, would other smart people buy it, and if so, why?

That may be, or not, but it's a rather useless point.

You can't question SJ's conclusion based on the specific assumption he made. Given his assumption, he is exactly right in what he said. That's the fact. Get over it. Move along (I can't understand why you're so incapable of it).

Do you own Apple shares?

Um, they stated multiple times your iPhone apps will sync right over and be useable from day 1.

Are you implying they will block the existing Kindle iPhone app from syncing to the iPad, or is this just more "Apple is evil" speculation that never comes to fruit?

Interesting that you equate closed with not being able to install Flash.

That's Flash the closed, proprietary, accessibility hostile, largely unnecessary, resource hog?

Concise, to the point and..................... SPOT ON!

I don't have to - multiple leading video sites were linked in this thread. If you look around HTML5 is buzzing all over the place. Flash's days are numbered. It's already irrelevant to my browsing experience on my MBP - I rarely whitelist or authorize a flash app to run.



Music sold from iTunes - until recently when Apple was able to convince the record companies to drop DRM - did have DRM. But the first 50 gigs of music I put on my iPod came from CD's and MP3's I had. I didn't buy my first iTunes track for almost a year after I had my first iPod and was using it successfully.

And you were talking about it because you were making these typically unfounded claims about Apple being "closed"...


Maybe, maybe not. They have also acquired their own mobile ad network company as well.


Not if the paid streaming is reasonable and ad free. You may be willing to tolerate ads for free, but if there is a reasonably priced streaming option that's ad free, I'll happily pay to be ad free. There's lots of room in here. And netflix is available in non-silverlight streams - there is nothing to say that the current free guys that rely on flash or silverlight couldn't offer something else if it was worth it to them. It's just software...


Again, you are assuming Apple's media sales are key to it's bottom line. While they are there, they aren't as key to Apple as they are to, say, Amazon with the Kindle.


Not really. Apps and games that were flash only have somehow managed to make their way onto the iPhone (look at the flurry of activity from the likes of PopCap). Flash is no longer the 200lb gorilla of the internet. Add 10 million iPads and things will be dire indeed for Flash.


Hang on to that dream - HTML5 is going to be a whirl-wind adoption that will make CSS look like a fad


HTML 5 is here today. Even Microsoft is getting into the groove with HTML 5.


Your assuming it will matter that they will not be standing still. I won't care because I won't be using them

Microsoft was able to steamroll over earlier browser vendors with pure market dominance and their muddying of the waters and Internet standards allowed Flash to step into the void. That's no longer the case.

Sounds like a flawed model for the long term, no?


How so? Microsoft doesn't see that hardware revenue.


Yup, an inaccurate one!


As others pointed out, Nokia does sell laptops. It won't matter, by this time next year Apple will surpass Nokia in revenue with just the iPhone/iPad. Notice I said revenue - you can focus on market share if you like, but hi marketshare/low profit devices don't bring in the revenue and in more ways than one.

Nokia is in serious trouble and they know it.

GREAT POST, i couldn't have said it any better!!!

Yes, because one mans fart app is another mans holy grail. I'm glad you are so plugged into the needs of everyone you can make such substantial and informed judgements about the quality of a whole ecosystem.


Well, I dunno - handicapped implies impeded, crippled, hobbled... and the App store has been the single biggest success for any kind of applications store on any platform. Ever.

In three years it's generated more revenue for mobile applications developers than all other platforms - some that have been in existence for over 10 years and are "open".

If that kind of success is what you consider "handicapped", to quote another movie "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."


It's hard to argue the theoretical - there is just as much a chance that it would be exactly the same or less. There is no way to know for sure. That's what makes baseless speculation on the Internet so much fun!


Except it's not a "computer" in the traditional sense. It's more an appliance or unique platform. It's something new entirely.


No, because it's not going to happen. And it doesn't happen on the iPhone either. Yes, there are some cases where Apple has rejected apps like Google voice, but I suspect most of those have been because of agreements with AT&T. It will be interesting to see if things change with the iPad - esp. with wifi only models.


It wasn't just that - it was also the possible impact of crappy code on the user experience. Sadly there is far to many examples of bad code on Windows and even Mac OSX.


Huh? This never happened nor was it EVER implied, except in kooky threads like this on the Internet.


What's a stretch is your tortured logic. What's the point of wanting something different, and then complaining when it isn't like every other piece of equipment out there? If you don't like Apple's model, then don't buy it! Run to Android or whatever other system more floats your boat. But I (and millions of others) happen to like the direction Apple is going in true computing appliances.

It's about time someone focuses on the overall user experience and you can't do that without accountability from everyone. The App store enforces that. It's a good thing.


Says someone who has yet to hold one in his hands, see the final version or see how developers react to it.



Your pretty cocksure about a whole lot of hypotheticals that rely on some pretty fantastic assumptions - esp. given Apple's track record over the last 10 years.


It is an amazing platform coming to market.

The really wonderful thing is it will still be an amazing platform coming to market despite myopic people such as yourself not believing so


People will think what they want to - at their own peril. The iPhone morphed way beyond what even I imagined for it. With the advances in the iPad, in a year we are going to look back and go "damn!" for stuff that we can't even conceive of right now that will no doubt come popping out of the woodwork. Just like it happened with the original iPhone. When you give developers fertile ground with low barriers to entry, amazing thinks happen. They aren't even relying on lightening to strike twice since the iPad is an evolution of an existing, wildly successful model.


I don't think any has implied that - Apple certainly hasn't, they were very clear about where they see the iPad.


Careful grasshopper - productivity is in the eye of the beholder.


Why not? If I had a proper fold out keyboard for my iPhone like I had with my Palm Pilot, I would be taking notes on it in meetings instead of paper or my (ugh) work laptop. We already know the iPad will have keyboard support. Right now it looks like it can easily do 80% of what the average office work (and I count myself in that category) can do these days. It will be interesting to see just how far it can be pushed.


Again, I think you are seriously lacking in imagination. I guess we will see when it ships (when it ships - that has a nice ring vs. all the previous vaporware in this category from other manufacturers).


But see, I rarely need a Macbook when I am on the go. When I go on travel, I no longer take a notebook with me - my iPhone does almost everything I need. An iPad will definitely do everything I need and then some. I regret buying my MBP now - although I will still have uses for it, if I do get an iPad my MBP will see *allot* less action.


It's not being a fanboy, it's a fact. There are far more non-technical users who haven't been touched by computing, or are barely using "computers" (just like my father) than there are of you and I.

Steve acknowledged as much several years back when he declared the desktop wars over and MS the winner. He's right. I think the success of the iPod woke Apple up to a new and untapped market that is orders of magnitude larger than traditional computers (desktops, laptops, netbooks, etc.) Everything with the iPhone, the SDK, the iPod Touch and now the iPad is marching relentlessly to domination of this sector. The debut of the Apple designed A4 CPU in the iPad is huge. Now not only will vendors not be able to re-create Apple's software ecosystem easily, they won't be able to slap some off-the-shelf parts together and get 90% the way towards what Apple is doing. Here is where Apple will really step away from the pack and start to leave them in the dust. The gap will just widen more dramatically with each generation. The tight integration of Apple's hardware and software will become even more of a self-reinforcing loop than it already is.

Meanwhile you can't even call Google on the phone to get support for Android? And that's a threat? Once Android hits geek saturation, where is it going to grow to? Users like my father certainly won't be buying one!

You can get a 3G for $99.

How much longer are most people going to accept "non smartphones"?

No one has ever survived by clinging to the bottom - and if they manage to, it's never pretty.


Ha! You haven't seen the crazy yuppie parents around me! I see kids with them in restaurants all the time (and I'm surprised how many end up being iPhones and not "just" iPod Touches)


With the opening up of the dock connector, I am really surprised that many of the case/sleds with arcade style buttons haven't caught on. Probably has something to do with restrictions on the input manager that don't allow keyboards Perhaps with the debut of the keyboard on the iPad this will trickle back to the iPod and iPod touch and finally allow broad support for accessories like these. If so, the DS is truly toast.


For right now, sure. But trends change. Kids are fickle - just ask any parent

media consumption devices aren't in and of themselves very interesting. If they were, existing products from companies like Creative would be far more popular.

The iPad is much more than a simple media consumption device. That's what makes it so interesting.

At least in revenue? .... At least in revenue? ... for crying out loud dude, these companies all exist for the same reason .... to show a profit. What other criteria means diddly squat?

So do I, on my iPhone, it's a bit hard on the small screen but it's definitely playable and you can do pretty much everything.

Fight, do jobs, bank, collect from businesses, enter the daily draw, upgrade, accept people into your family, buy things, post on your wall, it's all their and a lot more fun than planting carrots in Farmville.

I agree entirely, where did all the Adobe shareholders come from?

It's the only explanation I can come up with for such blind devotion to a proprietry, closed system.

A surprising amount of people seem to be hung up on market share for some reason

I'm not going to bother responding to your complete post because others have already done so but I think I can offer a different slant on this whole iPad thing. You see, I think the biggest competitor to Apple out there is .... Apple itself. Let me explain.

Go back in time to a few days before the iPhone was launched in 2007. There were no smartphones, as we know them today ... no multi-touch devices ... a completely different landscape from today. Then Apple comes along and introduces .... not the iPhone, but the iPad.
The marketplace would have hailed this iPad thingy as the most revolutionary device since sliced bread. Sales would have skyrocketed. Imagine, reading a book or surfing the net at the beach, listening to music, showing off photos of your kids, watching videos ... all on the same device. Sales would have skyrocketed.

Now fast forward 18 months or so to another Apple "special event" where Apple states that the hugely successful iPad was being followed up by the iPhone. People would have been amazed yet again, to see all that wonder in a device that fit in your pocket and again .... sales would skyrocket.

The point is ... That Apple has set the bar so high with the iPhone, mostly because it was so far ahead of every other phone out there, it was such a giant leap forward ... that everyone, including Apple themselves ... are having difficulty repeating that much separation over present day offerings. Does that make the iPad a disappointing device? Not necessarily. I just think the level of separation between the Apple iPhone/touch etc. and the iPad is not as great as the first iPhone was with it's competition at the time.

In those days Apple was only competing with the Nokias and Rims of the world. .... Now Apple has to compete with Apple, and that is a much stronger competitor. .... I think, in time, the iPad will find it's legs and will surprise a lot of us.

Which would explain why a lot of businesses fail every year. ...Well, when you can deposit market share in the bank ... I'll be interested, until then ... as Rod Tidwell would say ..."Show me the money".

The 8.46B was the original calculation by Anant for Apple's revenue. I was trying to point the difference in the figures given by Anand, and the SEC figures that I could find. Funnily enough, the two sources have totally different figures for iPhones and iPods, but exactly the same figure for MBs.

Anand gave the link to the figures he used and thank you for that. Like I said, I couldn't find the actual document and had to rely on a synopsis of it. Facts are what I was looking for and now I have them.

Just shows that almost anyone can claim almost anything and be proven right (and wrong at the same time). And this is not meant as a stab or discredit at the claim(s), just an observation.

Regs, Jarkko

Try and be rational yourself, when you mention big Brother theory, you being very rational ..NOT. Why do you visit this site. I never gone onto a Microsoft news site to make negative comments, since I do not like using MS and what is the point, since already know that I will never use MS and do not like their software.

Btw you talk about calling people names..Hmm may want look in mirror, noticed you written a few childish ones yourself.

I know you do not have much to do during your evenings at moment (winter season) because it is so wet, cold and windy in UK right now, but maybe try use your energy for some good instead of getting your 'thrills' by thinking that your arguments in this thread will change the world, YOU make no difference with your comments to change our minds, since you come with destructive approach.

Btw: You can do something about spy cams, you and UK people just like film 'V for Vendetta'

Never ever in my life have I read something about Apple that says this.

"....and notes that quite a few pundits expected Apple's iPad to be a flop"

this was also said about the iPhone though right ?

With intelligent arguments like that, I can see why Apple decided against supporting the world wide standard for online video and interactivity.

Why yes - yes they did - thank you for pointing that out - we neophytes need people like yourself to point us toward the wisdom that is FLASH! - oh Glory - Glory to the almighty adobe.

NOT!

The problem with Steve Jobs' definition of mobile devices is where do you draw the line? Are we going to see the CEO of Toyota going to stand up next week and make similar claims? After all, cars are mobile too. And full of electronics.

Jobs must have known that the world's press would take his sound-bite and repeat it without explaining his non-standard definition. It's clever but misleading.

Toyota? - the same company that just recalled 3M of their 'mobile devices' - lol

Not really. In this instance, there is only one right set of numbers. Period. You don't get to pick.

Now, that's a fair point. What makes it somewhat credible, however, are two facts: One, Nokia has decided to enter the mobile computing market itself, and two, the line between 'phones' and 'laptops' is blurring.

It is still some technological distance to a laptop that can physically transport me to work, or a car that can do an Excel spreadsheet. When we get there, Toyota can make the claim too, why not!