Consumers lose interest in iPad after Apple's unveiling - survey - Page 9

Looks like you posted a picture of yourself misspelling moron! Nice going, retard!

It becomes less important if the iPad does not have Flash.

By not having Flash for the 80 million iPhones and Touches out there, which have been shown to encompass over 50% of ALL mobile browsing, including that from notebooks, netbooks, tethered applications, etc, the lack of Flash on those devices, and now on the iPad, will do more to lessen the use of Flash than anything else.

Flash on phones and other small factor products is not really all that useful for more than video. And as more video becomes available without Flash, then Flash becomes even less compelling on those platforms. So far, mobile Flash isn't the same as "computer" Flash. You can't do much with it, as has been already shown.

So what are we giving up? Just some video. For the video obsessed, that meaningful, but for the rest of us, it doesn't mean much. And there are programs for the iPhone that let us see much video and Tv shows anyway. There will be more for the iPad, no doubt.

So, possibly we'll see for a time, a dichotomy. For mobile devices, Flash will lose its importance, but will retain it for full sized machines, but then that will decline as well.

Adobe already has a program that lets developers take Flash work and make it viewable to non Flash machines. The beginning of the end.

we are making the same point.

It seemed you were stating the opposite. Happy you were not.

What's the point of a survey about a product that isn't here yet? Especially one that will rely heavily on user experience to sell it.

It's interesting to see how peoples reactions change over time. Other than that, not much. Apple will be producing this product despite the surveys.

Hur, hur, hur you is so clever with the MaxiPad pitcher, hur, hur, hur...

...you must be a genus or sumfin', hur, hur, hur

Ok guys, cool it. It's no longer funny.

Uninstall the plugin and watch how hard it is to navigate.

I've used ClickToFlash for at least a year now. Navigation does not change when Flash isn't on. Resources are freed up and your pages load faster. The only time I use it for watching video sites, which a new and better option is coming around the corner and which would never work on the current iPhones even if it did have Flash.

Not true at all. And I also use Click to Flash. You should try it. Everything works so much better. and the rare times you need to see a Flash video, it's just a click away.

This is pretty new. It sits in your Menu Bar and alerts you when the Flash process is using more than 30% of your processing. It can kill it quickly if the occasional lockup occurs. From the makers of VisualHub.

http://www.bashflash.com/

Sorry, I thought I came to 4Chan by mistake.

It must have been the witty and original Maxipad picture and the tolerance of personal insults.

Apparently I'm a retard.

I saw that, and I was wondering if I should try it, but there are just so many little things I want in the machine.

Hey, I'll tell you what. YOU try it and let us know what you think.

I am. So far it hasn't come into use, but I don't use Flash much these days and have ClickToFlash running. I use HTML5 for YouTube.com and Flash for embedded YouTube and Vimeo videos, and Hulu videos. If I need it once a month I'd think it's a lot, but sometimes you don't realize that it would be useful so I'mm give it a few days.

I like the simplicity of it. The mark against it is that it's don't allow you to move it's placement in the Menu Bar. Is that a Cocoa feature?

My initial interest in the Apple tablet was as a digital canvas, and to be able to run programs like Sketchbook and ArtRage. However the device being a "giant iPhone" and limited OS leaves a bitter taste. I know Sketchbook is available for iPhone, but it's much more limited than the desktop counterpart.

The other issue I am having, at least as I understand it, is that the device seems like it will be a peripheral rather than a full portable. In other words, it won't replace a MacBook but it will need a MacBook to sync.

AT&T's wireless coverage where I live is bad so I have no interest in the 3G capability.

Menu bar of Safari, or the desktop? I've never been able to move anything around the desktop menu bar, and I've got a lot of stuff. Sometimes I've thought the only reason I keep getting bigger monitors is to have more room in the menu bar for junk.

I'll bet that many programs in the app store will be adapted for the iPad in such a way so as to take advantage of the power, screen size, and extra API's. Some stuff has already been announced, and other stuff will be announced during the next couple of months. Hold off until the apps you want will be available. Better yet, send the developers a note expressing your interest.

Back to topic- People have lost interest because this PAD is exactly what many of us have been saying- it's a large MAXI iPod. And how many iPods does one person need????
Steve Jobs himself has said the iPhone is the world's best iPod which is exactly what this is. I take that back- you can't take a picture or make a phone call on it. Even the AppleTV is basically an iPod that connects to your TV. Enough!!! The public expected something truly innovated from Apple and instead go this? The world's largest iPod????
And I doesn't matter what kind of Apps get developed for it- it's not a productivity tool. It's an iPod- for viewing and listening and playing with APple approved widgets. Good luck. Steve must have been reading a ton of magazines when convalescing to come up with this iPod reader.

Ha, that's the clever bit. Apple first introduced the iPhone (and iPod touch), people got used to browsing everywhere, loving the experience, but wishing the device was a little bigger.

And 'miraculously', the new iPad exactly fits this description. As a result I'll be using an iPhone on the road, or at work and an iPad at home to browse on the couch at the dinner table and everywhere else within wifi range. The iPad will also be used to do presentations and demos at work, and of course as a browser to replace the appalling 'XP explorer locked down by IT' experience.

Most of the time the MacBook will stay at home, but it will still be used when I need software that isn't - yet - available on the iPad or when I need a bigger screen for web design or movie production with iWeb and iMovie. Effectively as a stand in for the iMac when its in use.

J.

I for one can't wait. And this just in:

///

http://www.9to5mac.com/ipad_sell_out_567888

iPad pre-orders sell out in Norway, report explains:

Expect the iPad to sell out on launch - at least in some territories, early market signs suggest.

Apple’s iPad is already a big success in Norway, where local retailers, Eplehuset and Humac have had to close their pre-order books in face of stiff demand - they say they’ve already sold out of any expected initial stocks.

///

And I don't think the picture will be much different worldwide, I think demand is going to outstrip supply. I expect waiting lists and massive cues around blocks on launch day.

What I mean is they could ad text to speech. Different UI. They can certainly ad a camera right now. Larger HD. FireWire port. Video camera. If it does not sell well, maybe flash for 100% of network website, 75 % for the rest of the web.

I think they do some of these on purpose, for example, a camera but want customer to buy a second or third time.

Just a thought.

What makes text to speech so important?

Yes they could add a camera. But do you honestly see most people demanding cameras for video conferencing? I cannot think of a single person who would buy an iPad simply because of a camera.

They could add a larger HD but it would be twice as expensive.

What would you do with FireWire on the iPad?

Whose to say text to speech isn't provided in a future update. Different UI? Why? Sure they can add a lot of things. Problem is that those things cost money. For what the iPad is designed to do, it achieves with a low price. Over-complicating the device not only loses its focus, but its price point.

His opinions are much closer to the truth than yours are.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1877...underestimated

The iPad is forever away and it doesn't do anything new it just does some things better. Those two things combined are the reason for the tepid interest I think. But I suspect once people start getting them in their hands they may not want to put it down. The trick will be to get people to actually use them.

I question what "doing something new" means.

Does it mean being able to use a full fledged word processor/page layout program? Does it include using Keynote or Numbers, both full programs? Does it include using a full sized "real" keyboard dock? Does it include using 101.n rather than the much slower "g"?

At what point do we see what it does that the iP/T don't in order to say that it's doing something "new"?

Just the fact of it having a much faster cpu/gpu and a screen with five times the rez and size means that it does something new. Also, having 10 hours of better power for video is new, as is the 140 hours of music. Yes, I know you can say that it's not really new, just better. But at some point, the "better" is so much better, that it's new, because people will be able to take that "better", and use it in ways that the original device wouldn't lend itself to.

Having that much battery life in a full color device with video means that people will no longer be so constrained by battery life during the entire day. They won't have to worry about limiting their activities so it won't run out. Other activity such as reading will likely give even longer life as neither the cpu or the gpu will be working at high capacity.

We will see apps for this that aren't feasible on the iP/T platform. There will be many new API's for this. We're already seeing that there are new ways of saving and storing files, as well as sharing them on a computer. That alone is a big new thing.

That's why saying that this doesn't do anything new is just so wrong.

I take your point, and compared to the iPhone it does indeed have new things (productivity apps) and compared to a laptop it also has new things (large touch screen).

I guess where I was coming from is not so much comparing it with existing products and deciding whether something is new or merely an improvement, but rather - is there anything people have never seen before? That's what matters in terms of generating interest. They've seen productivity apps on computers and they've seen touch screens and virtual keyboards on the iPhone. I guess one could argue they've never seen it all in one package like this, but then the question becomes: is the whole greater than the sum of it's parts?

And I think probably in this case the answer is yes, which is why I say people need to get it in their hot little hands. Because on the Internet, in writing, people will naturally compare feature lists, but that amounts to looking at attributes instead of the whole, so maybe that is why they are not so excited. But if you get it in your hands you can't help focus on the whole.

I see reporting that hospitals are interested, educators are interested, etc. Windows tablets are being used in some places now, but they have been big and heavy. Windows isn't suited for this purpose even (especially!) in a small tablet.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Review....html?x=0&.v=1

So is this different? Yes, because it will be able to do many things that "full' tablets can do, but do it faster, while being smaller and lighter, with better battery life.

After all, an automobile was no different than a horse and carriage in that it took people places.

Think back to when the original iPhone was released. It was hideously expensive and fairly lacking in features - in fact only the diehard Apple fans bought it. They were the people who knew they were paying $200 over the odds and were happy to do so in order to get the iPhone first. These people - call them fanboys if you like - are probably the most forgiving of Apple customers when it comes to new products so Apple could use them as testers. In those few months Apple fixed a load of bugs, looked at how people were really using it and what features were really missing. In addition to all this, because they haven't sold too many if anything truly catastrophic turns up they can do a recall without too much expense or bad publicity.

A few months after launch, Apple have worked out that the hardware is OK, they've fixed a big pile of bugs, dropped the price by $200 and are well on the way to designing hardware revision B (the iPhone 3G). To keep the early adopters happy they give them a $100 iTunes voucher.

A year after the release of the first iPhone comes the iPhone 3G. It has many missing features: note that these are the features people who used the iPhone said were missing rather than some tech pundits who had never touched one.

Fast forward to the iPad...

We have a minimal feature set in a new form factor. Apple will sell enough to make it viable because they have a sufficient fan base who will buy anything new and shiny that they put out but not so many that it becomes expensive/embarrassing in the event of a recall. Between March and September (or thereabouts), Apple will gain plenty of usage information from them and gain valuable insights into what is required by real users in hardware revision B, then - providing everything is looking good - they will release some bug fixes, drop the price ($399 for the wifi-only and $499 for the 3G look like good figures), and start to leverage scale efficiencies in the manufacturing process.

Come Spring 2011 we will get the iPad 2 which will gain the killer features missing in the original iPad. Regular customers like me know this and will hold out, just as I did for the iPhone 3G. Apple know that we know this and it is exactly what they want as they don't want their mainstream customers using (and complaining about) slightly buggy first generation products with missing features.

Uhh, they have seen it. What else could "post unveiling impressions" mean? Sure, they didn't actually hold it in their hands but I hardly doubt that simply touching the iPad will change people's underwhelming impressions.

I was totally looking forward to this thing, followed all the rumours, and I too find the whole thing pretty useless for me. I think it could definitely be appealing for people who are not so tech savvy because it's not that intimidating of a product for new or casual computer users.

Seems to me like Apple just slapped this thing together to not let the competition get too far ahead. I agree that I would rather have an iPad over any other similar device but making a large iPod Touch is not innovation.

If the iPad was more like an actual Table PC then I'd be sold. And I really don't like how Apple thinks they can "kill" Flash by telling people to use HTML5 instead. Apple thinks people are stupid and can't figure out that developers would simply develop web apps and completely bypass the need for Apple's App store losing that 30% profit from sales. Typical Corporate thinking.

I installed click to flash a few days ago, most pages I have no need to click. Suddenly my browser hasn't crashed either.

I, and my family, held out until the3G came out, because there were two features we really wanted, which Jobs had made clear were coming, though he didn't say when. 3G and Apple supported third party apps. GPS was a bonus that I wanted, but wasn't going to prevent the sale if it wasn't present.

At this point in time, I feel as though the iPad, out of the box is viable with what it has. A front mounted camera would be nice, but not required. I've done video conferencing a couple of times with my daughter overseas, and a half dozen times with a friend who I do work with in photography, just to test it out and see if it was useful in that context (it wasn't). But, otherwise, I haven't bothered. I suspect that far more people will be like me in this regard than those who really want this feature. If we will be able to connect a third party video camera, then that will be fine. If they do put a camera in, that will be fine too. Otherwise, not such a big deal, though the tech writers, whom I will bet don't videoconference any more than anyone else, seem to be so sorry it's not there.

Also, people should not forget that the reason why Apple was able to lower the price drastically shortly after the phone came out, was because they were already in negotiations with AT&T to offer the two year contract with its lower phone pricing (as we now know). They didn't lose much therefor. And, what is the unsubsidized iPhone price today overseas where they are being offered? Pretty high.

The iPad, right now at least, isn't being offered with a subsidized contract, so there's really nowhere to go with pricing. At least, not in such a substantial amount, which was from $600 to $400 until the contracts were announced.

We have no idea if Apple is intending to go that route, though it seems doubtful, considering how the iPad is constructed. So, maybe, according to rumors, and that's all they are right now, Apple MAY lower the price a bit if it isn't selling up to their projections. But that's just speculation, and it isn't even out yet. I don't know how you derived those numbers which, I presume, you have no knowledge of the viability of same. In other words, you're just making numbers up, and assuming that because you made them up that they are good.

I notice that in your post, you make no mention of a single feature that you would be waiting for. Exactly what, other than lowering prices, would Apple have to do to make you want to buy this?

He obviously, uhh, meant in the hand, as most people would understand that to mean. Actually, you're wrong about the impression. Look around the web, and you'll see a lot of tech writers that were saying that they didn't think much of it until they used it for a while after the presentation. Almost all of the bad press has been from those who didn't get time with it. Those who did, got it. I'll just present two links, from PCmag, not a bastion of Mac fluffery:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358602,00.asp

From an editor who was there:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358507,00.asp


Perhaps, but you seem to be making a self fulfilling prophecy.


Why is that? Is the fact that isn't different from what's out there so disturbing that you can't grasp it?



Interesting. So you want this tobe more like the failed Tablet PC that MS has been shoveling for the past 9 years? You do realize that those have been SO unsuccessful that they've never gotten more than 1% of the total computer market? Te best they've done was in 2007, when 2.5 million were sold, about that 1%.

Last year, 1.5 million were sold, less than .5%.

Web apps have been a failure so far, and no one wanted them on the iPhone/Touch, so why would you think people would want them here?

And you want Apple to emulate that failure? Why would that be?

I think its a bit of stretch to say that web apps are a failure. I agree at this point web app development is a work in progress and for many reasons native apps have advantages. Many native apps are just a front end UI for web content and could easily be a web app. I think at this point native apps get all of the hype. There are advantages to web apps that will be realized.

They've been a failure to this point. I said, so far. I'm sure that in the future they will do better. This seems to be a product category that people aren't ready for yet, though the companies that are pushing it, esp. Google, are making a big fuss over it.

Google sees that as a way to knock MS off their perch. MS thinks they must respond. Apple has Mobileme, which is not quite there yet, and a number of other smaller companies are involved. But, so far, there's no evidence that it's being used to any great extent. People are playing with them, but that seems to be about it.

And as far as mobile goes, we all remember the great disappointment we all had when Jobs talked about web apps rather than device specific apps? And look at the success of the resultant App Store.

It's going to take a while. Web apps aren't nearly as seamless, or rich, as device specific apps are. In addition, for most people wireless is too slow, and even DSL and cable is too slow for most people.

The reason I don't agree with the term failure is because that is a fairly terminal statement. Failure means that something is finished and has little chance of ever being a success. This certainly is not the situation web apps are in.

Web services are used by hundreds of millions of people. There are millions of media phones that do not have the sophisticated app development of the iPhone/Android and can only access Facebook and YouTube mobile pages.

I agree with that. Failure is certainly extreme.

But what if we qualify it as revenue from mobile web apps? How has that fared?

I'm sure in general you'd make more money selling a native app than providing web apps with ads, but then Google isn't doing too bad for itself.

Ok, I won't say failure. I'm not surehow to describe it then. It's been far from successful.

There's a difference between most web based services, and the MS web based Office, or Google's documents. Those are simply not popular.