Consumers lose interest in iPad after Apple's unveiling - survey - Page 5

Poor thing. I see you have issues with reading and retention. Plus anyone who uses the term fanboy can be immediately dismissed as a non-serious person.

Perhaps they should do a survey of people to find out how many have heard of Retrovo. I have never heard of this site.

This is an effort (pathetic at that) to increase traffic to Retrovo, and nothing more.

I know you are just here trolling like a child but in the real world where the rest of us live Apple allows built-in apps to multi-task. I block Flash anyway because it sucks so I don't care if it is on the iPad or not. Camera? For what?

Apple wants to kill Flash dead. Thank god for that as it is long overdue. Apple isn't the only company that thinks this. So does Google.

While that data might be relevant, everything boils down to one factor and one factor only: Maximization of total profits.

Every pricing decision ever made by Apple was made in order to attain this goal.

Yeah,,,he laughed at the iPod and the iPhone and Microsoft stock owners are furious at his incompetence.

Just put a USB port on the device to move files with the Mac. And PowerPoint inside as well.

Apart from geeks, most folks want access to the full web. Not just part of it.

Mel is right, I wasn't being serious. Sorry if I confused.

It will not display hi def due to the antique aspect ratio.

In letterboxed mode, the image is quite shrunk, and not nearly HD dimensions. The vertical resolution is only about 60% of the lowest HD resolution, and is barely better than DVD.

The sheer volume of posts so quickly in response to this story tells me the iPad (oh how I hate the name!) will do well!

Do you mean a webcam or a camera? I don't understand the burning desire to have a camera on a device with a 10" screen. Take a picture on your camera or camera equipped device and transfer it over to the iPad instead of holding an iPad in front of your face. Most cell phones have cameras, and people generally carry those around. It's not like people are hurting for the lack of a camera. I don't get the need for webcams either. They are a nice feature, but I don't see how they are a must have. Regardless of that, I think an addon webcam would do a better job anyway. A webcam that is independent of the screen orientation would be a good thing for a tablet as a tablet mounted webcam would shoot the ceiling if you ever laid it down.

The iPad with flash would not be revolutionary. Revolution implies change. Having flash is just maintaining the status quo. If (and it is a big if) the growing number of flashless idevices means that web developers stop using flash so they can gain greater platform support, it could be stated that the lack of flash was actually revolutionary. While I'm not sure if Apple will be able to force changes in web development, the device could be revolutionary in other ways, such as redefining what the average consumer actually needs out of a computing device.

I can hear SJ now - "That's it. Revise those 2010 Budget numbers for advertising- NOW"

Yep, and did you actually thought about the use and not just followed the specs available on apple website?

Your point being?

Couldn't agree more. A juvenile delinquent and therefore a non-serious person.

Revised edit

While I know people will disagree anyway, I'm going to try and make some sense out of surveys like this, as it's a perfect example.

Let's first make an assumption for the sake of the argument that this survey is different from other online self selected surveys, and say that it's correct. Who knows, it might be.

So where does that leave us? Well, there are two ways to look at surveys, depending on the product, and how it's positioned.

If a large company has a new $1 product that's been rumored for a while with a 100 million possible market size, and a survey shows what the "before" survey shows, it would have 49% of people being possible buyers, not bad.

But the "after" survey only shows 30% as interested. Not good.

Even with the "definitely buying" percentage tripling from 3 to 9% that's way too small for a $1 product to be on market for a large company, and the 30% shows a serious drop in overall interest.

Well, for a $1 product, the manufacturer might take it off the shelves after a few months if sales are that slow, as not all of the 30% will materialize as real sales.

But now we take a product that averages about $675. How do we look at the survey, assuming the same number 100 million customers?

Well, it's not likely the company is looking for that 49% as real customers. The after survey results aren't devastating with the drop to 30% either. Why? Because the product isn't expected to resonate with the majority of consumers at that price, as it's a more specialized product. The fact that 30% are interested is itself amazing.

But here, the 3% originally, and the later rise to 9% is the real story.

3% would result in 3 million sales that first year, and 9% would result in the company possibly not being able to fill orders. The product would be a good seller at the low number, and a major hit at the higher one.

So the survey can be looked at in two different ways, but how one looks at it must depend on the size of the market, the price of the product, how specialized it is, and the sales of approximately similar products.

No, they were not. But the differences between the original and the 3GS are incremental, and Apple was fully capable.

You may think otherwise, and assume that for years they couldn't properly implement cut and paste. Are you one of the guys who is currently saying that Apple is unable to figure out how to implement multitasking without disastrous results? I don't believe that for one second.

USB is available through an adapter, and you don't need Powerpoint, as Keynote, a product that is considered to be better, is only $9.95.

And, apparently, you will be able to move files over WiFi. That's something that people have been screaming for. Now its here, be happy.

Anything higher that 480p is officially considered to be hi def according to the broadcasting industry.

I want the full web experience, minus the Flash part.

The millions and millions and millions of page views that the general public generates at flash-enabled web sites. Every day.

But to be clear, the general public doesn't "care about flash". That is a red herring.

Instead, the general public cares that their device will just work. And when they go to their favorite websites, they don't leave that desire behind.

Not to mention that PPT files can be read/edited as Keynote files and saved back as PPT.

I do hope that the iPad (did I mention I hate the name?) allows for use as an external disk drive so that one can simply click and drag to and from a physically connected source, than having to rely solely on wifi.

Yup! Just like all the people who have tried the device, and read its specs. The specs, after all, are what matters. The use follows the specs, as that allows what can be done.

You were just talking about specs, and you were wrong about them.

That using the metric "What if everybody did it?" is not useful.

Exactly..
I think the RIGHT buyers will come around eventually.
That iWork suite looked sweet! It was the thing that tipped me over from "don't need it" to "probably gonna buy it".

And a sidenote, in regards of the left out camera I think there are two VERY simple explanations:
- If you hold the thing in your lap most of the time, it means your face will be shot in low angle perspective. It will come out really really bad. Looks kind of menacing.
- Apple probably isn't ready with a complete mobile iChat.

So either a stylish way to snake the cam up to face level, or just leave it with the stupid low angle face shot. I mean it would be hard enough to hold an iPhone at cam level for a long time, then think how heavy an iPad would be.

1) Having Flash Lite doesn't give you access to the "full web" so these 2007 talking points are pretty lame.

2) Having a full version of Flash doesn't give you access to the "full web" if you consider plug-ins and browser-specific code relevant.

3) This device is not designed for "geeks". The sooner you realize that the sooner you understand Apple's market strategy.

4) How is Flash working out for the geeky android crowd? Oh it's not ready yet despite you crying foul on Apple for not building Flash for Adobe back in 2007? Oh you can't play games on a touchscreen because they were designed to use keyboard inputs? Oh it still can't play Hulu and Vimeo videos?



1) Maybe you should try an Apple product before you comment on it. Their Dock Connector video cables scale nicely with TVs. Never had a problem with it. Couldn't be easier.

2) DVD resolution is 480p/576p. The iPad output H.264, 720p @ 30fps. A little more than "better than DVD" and claiming 720p is not HD is silly.



Me too and I can see not useful thing this device can do for me, but it's obvious it will be the most successful tablet to date.

Much as I find the whining deafening around here I do think a camera would be good. Who knows if the first rev will feature one or not. I wouldn't be surprised. A camera on the iPad will perhaps be less useful than on the iPhone but I can see many situations in which it would be handy - or fun. To snap a photo of someone in order to put it into you address book would be an unnecessarily convoluted procedure without a built in cam. Need to scan a document? Take a picture. FrontRow fun for kids, video conferencing. etc.

Looking strictly at the specs, as you seem intent on doing, the iPod was never the best choice among MP3 players and none of Apple's computers look great when done strictly by the numbers. Yet, is there any doubt that the iPod is the dominant MP3 device?

It's not about raw numbers. For instance, you talk about how many millions of full-feature apps are available to netbook users but overlook the fact that your typical netbook doesn't do a good job of running many of them. Isn't it better to have a device that aces 100 apps than one that mangles 1000 of them. It's your approach, pursued by Apple's competition, that has made dominating the competition child's play for Apple. Consumers are not, it turns out, the dummies that other companies believe them to be. They know a good thing when it's offered to them which is why the iPod became the dominant MP3 player.

Don't get me wrong. I'm typing this response on a netbook and the reason I bougth it was to have access to a hard drive large enough to store HD video footage while on vacation. For that purpose, a $280 netbook did the trick and now I use it because I already own it so why not. But I can't pretend to being thrilled with the device. It accomplished what I needed it to and it's OK for now. But I can easily imagine the iPad will offer a better experience in many respects if only because that's what Apple products typically provide.

By avoiding the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach of the competition, Apple has become one of the most successful tech companies of the past few years.

Everything you say is true.

But we don't live in the future. In the present, for better or worse, Bazillions of folks go to flash sites every day. And "someday you won't care about that website - there will be something else, just as good" is hardly an answer to a kid who wants to play Farmville.

My math tells me that millions of people currently use the 'web to visit flash sites. And that many popular sites use flash.

Maybe you're right. The current unavailability of favorite sites to millions of folks might not matter.

C'mon. Ever read while taking a crap? How about hanging it on the wall in your kitchen? It would be the coolest audio control center in your living room. I know nothing about the way you live but I do know you have the money and don't you just want one? Just a little?

Before and after the first iPod and the iPhone were about the same response but that did not change how popular the products became. We will all have to see what comes.

What states the iPad can not multi task?

It may seem that way only because you haven't been paying attention. You should read the posts again.



You misinterpret the guidelines. Respectful, yes, to a certain extent, some members do sometimes cross the line. It depends on how much. A tweak doesn't seem to bother most people. More than that and we do take action. I've already removed a line from one post here.

But you're concerned with "lies". What are we supposed to do definitely assess each and every post, including yours, to make certain that everything posted is "true"? How do we go about that? Can you prove that everything you don't agree with isn't true? You can't. Even though some people here think that I think I do, I don't know everything, and certainly not enough to "know" when every "lie" is being presented, even though I suspect some, and simply don't agree with others.

Indeed, how does one separate a lie from a mistake?


This isn't? You would rather call it a site that has mostly Apple users and supporters? I don't mind being called a fan of Apple, and I don't suppose most here would be. Being called a fanboy isn't quite the same thing though. When used, it is pejorative in nature, and means that someone has excessive zeal, without acknowledging the negatives. Some people who post here fit that category. It's the opposite of trolling.

I readily admit to being an Apple fan, as I use their products extensively, and hold stock, but I'm not a fanboy, as I often disagree with their policy, and some of the products and services. It's a matter of balance. You always come across as an Apple fan, even though you might be afraid to say so. Even criticizing MDN has gotten you upset.


We have self policing. I've already said that. You haven't come up with a reasonable way to prove anything. Do you want to be the site researcher and spend all day looking things up so that we can "prove" that someone is constantly writing lies? It's a full time job, and the pay sucks.


Sometimes. It depends on the context, and how loud it's shouted.

I wish people wouldn't be so sensitive. People call me many things here. A duck's back. Quack.

We're not talking about "netbooks" as a nebulous category. The OP said "any netbook", as in "even the best netbook".

And to use your listed criteria, many high end netbooks have plenty of CPU and RAM for Ubuntu or XP. The screens are bigger in many cases than the iPad, and at any rate, they use a modern aspect ratio. And they have bigger keyboards than the iPad, given that they exist widescreen 10 or 12 inch models.

So why is the "Pad better than any netbook?

I'm getting one because I think it will saveme about $200 a semester in books. One book I had to get this semester was $140 on Amazon, and $32 on Kindle. Assuming Apple prices the same, that's more than $100 saving on one book. Plus I don't have to carry 25 lbs of books all day.

Yep. When you're right, you're right.

He should have said "extremely limited multitasking". The distinction is quite important.

1) If you don't make inroads to change tech it's not going to magically change.

2) Screw Farmville! You're finding a specific use for a specific user. That isn't how devices are designed.

3) No one is saying Flash doesn't have it's place, but mobile devices is not of them.

4) Some Good info: : http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/wi...open_standards

5) YouTube and Vimeo moving to HTMl5. Others will follow. Hulu is a video site, not a Flash site, they will move to HTML5 this year.

6) Mozilla on Firefox 3 for Maemo, "The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didnt meet our standards." http://blog.pavlov.net/2010/01/27/fi...for-maemo-rc3/

7) Now it's rumoured that WinMo 7 won't have Flash support, either.

it's not just Apple, it's mobile computing in general, and it's because Adobe dropped the ball years ago. Enough with the anti-Apple crap.

That the other points listed are all subordinate, and as such, are unimportant in the final analysis.

Use GoogleVoice App perhaps? Like all the other phones can use?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/a...4_SANFRA539309


I hear soap does a good job of getting the taste of foot out of one's mouth.