or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Consumers lose interest in iPad after Apple's unveiling - survey
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Consumers lose interest in iPad after Apple's unveiling - survey - Page 10

post #361 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This "cloud" computing model has been sold for a few years now as the NEXT BIG THING, and hasn't caught on. I'm not talking about things such as mail services and such either. I'm talking about web apps. So far, it hasn't succeeded.

It's certainly popular and getting more popular, it's the "store everything on the cloud and keep nothing locally" idea of cloud computing that needs to get the kibosh. Technology doesn't usually evolve that way.

I use cloud computing everyday. My iPhone connects to MM connects to Macs, I have iDisk syncing enabled. it connects to other Macs I monitor and update for family members via an Admin account with Back To My Mac turned on. I have my AddressBook sync with Google. My bookmarks, too, and Chrome pushes them between other Chrome browsers I'm connected to.

All that is well integrated with heavy amounts of local storage but that is way it should be. One day, local storage may play a lesser role in our lives, but I don't see it. I do see a lot more cloud opportunities to better facilitate our computing convenience but still all with local storage growing.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #362 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It's certainly popular and getting more popular, it's the "store everything on the cloud and keep nothing locally" idea of cloud computing that needs to get the kibosh. Technology doesn't usually evolve that way.

I use cloud computing everyday. My iPhone connects to MM connects to Macs, I have iDisk syncing enabled. it connects to other Macs I monitor and update for family members via an Admin account with Back To My Mac turned on. I have my AddressBook sync with Google. My bookmarks, too, and Chrome pushes them between other Chrome browsers I'm connected to.

All that is well integrated with heavy amounts of local storage but that is way it should be. One day, local storage may play a lesser role in our lives, but I don't see it. I do see a lot more cloud opportunities to better facilitate our computing convenience but still all with local storage growing.

This isn't what I'm talking about, and it's only a small part of the cloud model. I see you didn't mention Google Docs, or MS's suite, or any of a number of web apps.

Everything you mentioned, I already mentioned as what's being used. But that not really the could model. That's one of everything being done over the web, with little local storage and backup.

There's almost none of that going on, and there won't be for years. And if all the problems that we see, keep happening, it may never work.
post #363 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This isn't what I'm talking about, and it's only a small part of the cloud model. I see you didn't mention Google Docs, or MS's suite, or any of a number of web apps.

Everything you mentioned, I already mentioned as what's being used. But that not really the could model. That's one of everything being done over the web, with little local storage and backup.

There's almost none of that going on, and there won't be for years. And if all the problems that we see, keep happening, it may never work.

Those expecting that to happen need to turn off SyFy channel and get get back into the real world. Cloud computing complements local storage for the foreseeable future. Apple's NC data center may offer some new services, like streaming your iTunes DB playlist from their servers but all your files will still be kept locally of course.

I don't use Google Docs or any MS Office app so wouldn't have thought to mention them. I am seeing more corporations going with a intranet cloud system for many services.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #364 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Those expecting that to happen need to turn off SyFy channel and get get back into the real world. Cloud computing complements local storage for the foreseeable future. Apple's NC data center may offer some new services, like streaming your iTunes DB playlist from their servers but all your files will still be kept locally of course.

I don't use Google Docs or any MS Office app so wouldn't have thought to mention them. I am seeing more corporations going with a intranet cloud system for many services.

Most of what they're doing isn't really what we would call cloud services, because they are corporation to corporation. I'm familiar with that. When the web is just being used as a communication method, it's not properly a cloud service, any more than the telephone is. When I order parts over the internet, it's not a cloud service. If I hook into a corporate database, that isn't either.

The cloud model depends on a third party, or several of them between the ends of the transactions, doing web program serving, storage and backup, game serving, etc. If anything, the big game systems we see such as World of Warcraft are the only true cloud services going on right now. And even that's just partial. Usually, it's between two companies for a particular service and those two with others.

The entire cloud service concept depends on storage and computing. It's a model to get the local device to be used as a thin client, and that's just barely possible now.

What we see are little bits and pieces of it. But without the program and storage model being implemented, it's not really a cloud computing model. It's a communication model.
post #365 of 403
Oh well yes in the regard of office and document creation software then yes web apps are not good for that. A least not until they are made to feel like a local app.

I was primarily thinking about content delivery services that are naturally web based and don't really need a native app. I've been hearing rumors about Facebook allowing third party native Facebook apps for computers. I'm sure it would be faster and more responsive than Facebook in your browser, but its not something that's really needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.
post #366 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Oh well yes in the regard of office and document creation software then yes web apps are not good for that. A least not until they are made to feel like a local app.

I was primarily thinking about content delivery services that are naturally web based and don't really need a native app. I've been hearing rumors about Facebook allowing third party native Facebook apps for computers. I'm sure it would be faster and more responsive than Facebook in your browser, but its not something that's really needed.

I agree, but that's not really "The cloud". It's not much more than what's been happening since about 1995. Even Compuserve, which I used, by some definitions then, could be called cloud services.

I think that only when all the forces come together will we really be able to say that we are using cloud services. Right now, there have been baby steps toward that day. MM, for example, isn't really a cloud service, but only a part of it, despite all the hype.

If Apple put the iWork suite and iLife into MM, and we created works that don't reside on our machines, but on Apple's servers, we could then say that Apple has a cloud service. Same thing for music and video. If all of it resides there, then it's a cloud based service, but the way it is now, it isn't. Streaming services are cloud services, but they're not really all that popular. At this time, people want to own, and store locally, what they want. That would have to change so that iPods, iPhones, and other devices only need 4 GM memory again. When can you see that happening?

The problem is that services aren't ubiquitous. 3G service, even for Verizon, is spotty, and much too slow. We need at least 100 times as much bandwidth for the backbones, and that's going to take quite a while. WiFi is even more spotty.
post #367 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If Apple put the iWork suite and iLife into MM, and we created works that don't reside on our machines, but on Apple's servers, we could then say that Apple has a cloud service.

I'd call MM a cloud service. Having ties to a desktop apps for usability doesn't detract from the could service itself. it enriched it.

Even Google with their online docs can be stored locally. First with Gears and now natively with HTML5 DB option. I think being a thin client is another technology on top of the cloud, something that may never come, but if it does it will be a long, long time from now, while cloud-based services increase in popularity.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #368 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I think that only when all the forces come together will we really be able to say that we are using cloud services. Right now, there have been baby steps toward that day. MM, for example, isn't really a cloud service, but only a part of it, despite all the hype.

Are you defining a cloud service as something that is completely in a web browser and nothing is localized. I think for document and content creation that system will never really work. Because the quality of the network connection will always be inconsistent.

The system will have to be a hybrid between localized app that syncs with the cloud.

For a Google Docs to ultimately work it will need to have a local app built in HTML that has an icon in the dock. The app needs to look and feel like a native document editor that stores documents locally. When it has an internet connection syncs the document in the cloud.

This will allow both the advantage of cloud computing and the advantage of the speed and reliability of native apps.
post #369 of 403
One of Apple's high level strategies is to understand and anticipate the needs of users, rather than simply to respond to their expressed needs. They don't always get it right, and they cannot fulfill every need. The following article deals with some needs Apple users might have that they do not yet know they have. The iPad in particular and Apple's ecosystem in general addresses some *cognitive* productivity needs of users at the moment, and it leaves other cognitive needs unaddressed. Apple is uniquely positioned to solve some *cognitive* needs, as explained briefly here:
http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2010...d-limitations/

In this respect, the survey results are not as relevant as one might think.

See also:
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....ce=yahoo_quote
post #370 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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

I appreciate the links. I wasn't referring to the impressions of tech writers. That's my fault, I wasn't specific. It is a fact, however, that the "general public's" interest dropped after the unveiling as a result of the impressions that the iPad made. For me, there just seems to be something lacking, but as one of your linked article's tech writer says, Apple is good at appeasing it's potential consumers with refreshes that usually address any short comings any one of their products may have.

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

Hahaha what? I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean.


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

Ok, again I'm not sure if you really mean it "isn't different" or "it's different" But anyways, I grasp it just fine. Apple released a feature-heavy, multi-purpose (not multi-tasking) eReader killer. Hands down, I agree that they just killed the competition. It's Apple. It's what they do. But as a person who has had pretty much every Apple product in the past 10 years, I personally feel like it's just a giant iPod Touch with UI tweaks.


Quote:
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%.

Maybe the Tablet PC failed cuz it wasn't made by Apple? Haha kidding. It failed cuz there was never a real necessity to have a Table PC other than esthetics. Nowadays, people are doing more and more on the move, our lives are more integrated with technology and documented and shared through technology like never before. I think the failure was simply due to a lack of relevance in the computing market. I think "today's" person would expect a bit more from what people say is the most innovative tech company in the world.

Quote:
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'm not sure if you read my post thoroughly or if you're just "angry typing" at this point, but I didn't realize web apps used flash this whole time... Oh yeah they didn't. That's my entire point. Sure the web apps have been a failure because they're not dynamic enough. I have no doubt that web apps would have been much better if flash was a part of their development.
post #371 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This isn't what I'm talking about, and it's only a small part of the cloud model. I see you didn't mention Google Docs, or MS's suite, or any of a number of web apps.

Everything you mentioned, I already mentioned as what's being used. But that not really the could model. That's one of everything being done over the web, with little local storage and backup.

There's almost none of that going on, and there won't be for years. And if all the problems that we see, keep happening, it may never work.

I see your definition of "the cloud model" is that the apps & data are "in the cloud", and the computer is just a thin client.

Why do you believe that's the correct definition though?

I know you agree that it's possible to have local apps using data stored "in the cloud", or local apps with local data syncing to the cloud, such that the same data is seamlessly on multiple devices.

And it seems half this discussion is just that you don't call that cloud computing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The entire cloud service concept depends on storage and computing. It's a model to get the local device to be used as a thin client, and that's just barely possible now.

What we see are little bits and pieces of it. But without the program and storage model being implemented, it's not really a cloud computing model. It's a communication model.

Personally I think the cloud model depends on storage and syncing, rather than storage and computing. But there are benefits if your data is ALSO able to be worked on from a web browser when necessary.

Just focussing on the definitions here.
post #372 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Are you defining a cloud service as something that is completely in a web browser and nothing is localized. I think for document and content creation that system will never really work. Because the quality of the network connection will always be inconsistent.

The system will have to be a hybrid between localized app that syncs with the cloud.

For a Google Docs to ultimately work it will need to have a local app built in HTML that has an icon in the dock. The app needs to look and feel like a native document editor that stores documents locally. When it has an internet connection syncs the document in the cloud.

This will allow both the advantage of cloud computing and the advantage of the speed and reliability of native apps.

That's pretty much correct. I understand that everyone will have a slightly different idea of what this means. Most of the proponents in the industry are now allowing for some device based code, whereas before they weren't.
post #373 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'd call MM a cloud service. Having ties to a desktop apps for usability doesn't detract from the could service itself. it enriched it.

Even Google with their online docs can be stored locally. First with Gears and now natively with HTML5 DB option. I think being a thin client is another technology on top of the cloud, something that may never come, but if it does it will be a long, long time from now, while cloud-based services increase in popularity.

Well, I'm going by what I read as the ideal. But reality strikes again! There may be a "cloud", but most stuff isn't on it. The fact that data moves through it doesn't make it a cloud service. MM is partly the way there.
post #374 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by kill8joy View Post

I appreciate the links. I wasn't referring to the impressions of tech writers. That's my fault, I wasn't specific. It is a fact, however, that the "general public's" interest dropped after the unveiling as a result of the impressions that the iPad made. For me, there just seems to be something lacking, but as one of your linked article's tech writer says, Apple is good at appeasing it's potential consumers with refreshes that usually address any short comings any one of their products may have.

We have to careful when we interpret numbers. Actually, it doesn't matter what the larger part of the public thinks, because this isn't aimed at the majority. I doubt that Apple really expects the majority of the population to buy one of these. That would mean that Apple would be quickly selling 100 million a year, and moving up from that, the way Gates predicted that by 2006 the majority of computers being sold would be Windows tablets.

What matters is that the portion of the public that might REALLY consider buying one has tripled from 3% to 9%, that could mean sales of 10 million a year. That's a realistic number.

In addition, if you read those numbers carefully, you'll see that the number losing interest is about the same as it was before, and the number that may be interested is more than before.

The numbers actually work out as:

Not interested before=== 61%
Not interested after==== 70%

Interested before====== 21%
Interested after======= 30%

So the not interested went up by almost 15%
But, those interested went up by almost 43%

Those figures are far more meaningful.
Quote:
Hahaha what? I'm sorry, I don't see what you mean.

I mean that you seem to want this to fail, and hope that by saying that it will, that you will convince enough people to not buy it, so that it will fail. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. Sometimes the screen name people choose is spot on in telegraphing their objectives. Wouldn't you say? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:
Ok, again I'm not sure if you really mean it "isn't different" or "it's different" But anyways, I grasp it just fine. Apple released a feature-heavy, multi-purpose (not multi-tasking) eReader killer. Hands down, I agree that they just killed the competition. It's Apple. It's what they do. But as a person who has had pretty much every Apple product in the past 10 years, I personally feel like it's just a giant iPod Touch with UI tweaks.

It's tough to know where someone's coming from. I'm reading, in the same post from more than a few people, including you, from what I understand of what you're saying, that it's not different enough. I'd like to know why that would be a bad thing, if true.

What this is, is an extension to the iP/T platform. That's what it's supposed to be. It does more, as it's supposed to, while still remaining familiar enough to the large number of people who are used to the iP/T.
Quote:
Maybe the Tablet PC failed cuz it wasn't made by Apple? Haha kidding. It failed cuz there was never a real necessity to have a Table PC other than esthetics. Nowadays, people are doing more and more on the move, our lives are more integrated with technology and documented and shared through technology like never before. I think the failure was simply due to a lack of relevance in the computing market. I think "today's" person would expect a bit more from what people say is the most innovative tech company in the world.

You see, that remark makes it difficult to take the other remarks seriously, but I'll continue trying. The PC tablet failed because it's a terrible implementation of a tablet. Windows is the wrong OS for such a purpose. People don't need something like that on a tablet. MS never understood that. Now they're trying to shoehorn it into even less powerful devices, and it's even worse.

It's why Apple hasn't put the Mac OS into the tablet. It doesn't fit there. If the tablet was much more powerful, then with a revision of the GUI, maybe it would work. But otherwise it won't.

Quote:
I'm not sure if you read my post thoroughly or if you're just "angry typing" at this point, but I didn't realize web apps used flash this whole time... Oh yeah they didn't. That's my entire point. Sure the web apps have been a failure because they're not dynamic enough. I have no doubt that web apps would have been much better if flash was a part of their development.

It has nothing to do with Flash. It has to do with those apps having to work with different OS's and different cpu's. Meaning that they're not full fledged apps on any platform. They're a compromise. They aren't fast enough because of the lag time from slow connections. They can't leverage any of the hardware, because they don't know what the hardware is, because they're so far abstracted from it, being that they mostly live in the browser. Opening and saving large documents over the web is also a pain, and as we're finding out, it's dangerous to do so.

It's going to take years before that becomes more than a curiosity for a large number of people.
post #375 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

I see your definition of "the cloud model" is that the apps & data are "in the cloud", and the computer is just a thin client.

Why do you believe that's the correct definition though?

This is what I see being written as the ideal Cloud model. I agree that it would be a complete implementation. Partial implementations are possible, and for the near future, are more likely.

Quote:
I know you agree that it's possible to have local apps using data stored "in the cloud", or local apps with local data syncing to the cloud, such that the same data is seamlessly on multiple devices.

Yes, I do.

Quote:
And it seems half this discussion is just that you don't call that cloud computing.

As I say, it's what I read from some in the industry as being the ideal methodology. The long term goal.

Quote:
Personally I think the cloud model depends on storage and syncing, rather than storage and computing. But there are benefits if your data is ALSO able to be worked on from a web browser when necessary.

Just focussing on the definitions here.

By that definition, we've been using the cloud model for years already, when those promoting it, such as Google and MS, among the major companies in the field, mean cloud computing, storage AND syncing.
post #376 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

By that definition, we've been using the cloud model for years already

That's taking my meaning too far in the opposite direction, but I do think the cloud definition is murky. Some people have taken to replacing the phrase "stored it on my online disk" with "stored it in the cloud"... yet in some cases nothing has changed.

I still think part of the definition is that you have all your data available to all your devices via an online storage area. So MobileMe accomplishes this to a degree - but if my iPhone died and I got a new one, I wouldn't be back up and running immediately via my MobileMe account. If my computer died I'd still be reliant on rebuilding, reinstalling apps, etc.

My entire setup is still locked to a device, rather than being device independent. Apple has most of the bits and pieces to make it possible for me to log into ANY Mac and have it configure my preferences, give me access to my data (documents, music, photos....), install my apps (if necessary), and pretty well have me up and running. To accomplish that would require some creative dancing between accessing online data, local syncs, temporary caching - to make it look like my whole system is available to me a minute after logging in.

I guess to me "the cloud" promises my computing ANYWHERE, but I see that as achievable without being all web based client computing.

My point is that the definition of "the cloud" is sufficiently vague that it's worth remembering that if we just say "the cloud" the other person might not understand what we mean by that specifically.
post #377 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

That's taking my meaning too far in the opposite direction, but I do think the cloud definition is murky. Some people have taken to replacing the phrase "stored it on my online disk" with "stored it in the cloud"... yet in some cases nothing has changed.

I still think part of the definition is that you have all your data available to all your devices via an online storage area. So MobileMe accomplishes this to a degree - but if my iPhone died and I got a new one, I wouldn't be back up and running immediately via my MobileMe account. If my computer died I'd still be reliant on rebuilding, reinstalling apps, etc.

My entire setup is still locked to a device, rather than being device independent. Apple has most of the bits and pieces to make it possible for me to log into ANY Mac and have it configure my preferences, give me access to my data (documents, music, photos....), install my apps (if necessary), and pretty well have me up and running. To accomplish that would require some creative dancing between accessing online data, local syncs, temporary caching - to make it look like my whole system is available to me a minute after logging in.

I guess to me "the cloud" promises my computing ANYWHERE, but I see that as achievable without being all web based client computing.

My point is that the definition of "the cloud" is sufficiently vague that it's worth remembering that if we just say "the cloud" the other person might not understand what we mean by that specifically.

Yeah, that's true. I still think from what I've read, that the ultimate goal is everything on the web, but we may not get there for quite a while. At some point, it will seem normal. But we've got to take a few steps first.
post #378 of 403
Try using the "cloud" on shared 300 Kb/s down - 100 Kb/s up internet that is shared, and you'll see that for many people, the idea of cloud computing is next to impossible and local storage becomes paramount. Even watching videos on YouTube becomes a chore unless you have a decent Flash downloading and converting client so you can start the downloads and come back hours later to watch your videos.

As far as web browsing with iPhone OS version of Safari, I don't bother. The fact that it is incompatible with many, many websites makes it usable for only very limited web browsing. If there were other web browsers available for the iPhone OS I might use it to do more web browsing but Apple only allows their own web browser to be installed. As far as using different Apps for different websites, it is awkward to continually be opening and closing Apps simply to visit and use the content from different websites that a single, good web browser can do. So if I need to do any real web browsing / internet work, I open my MacBook.

This trend toward a closed model of computing that the iPhone / iPad represents is truly worrisome. If this is the future of computing, where the computer companies dictate to their customers what they can and can't install on their machines, I'd rather go back to pen and paper, public libraries, and real books.
post #379 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees! View Post

Did they poll the exact same pool of people before AND after? If not then this really doesn't amount to much because you don't see the opinion shift within the same body.

In statistics it is called a sample. The question you should ask is how many people were asked before and after, not if they were the same.
post #380 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJedi View Post

Try using the "cloud" on shared 300 Kb/s down - 100 Kb/s up internet that is shared, and you'll see that for many people, the idea of cloud computing is next to impossible and local storage becomes paramount. Even watching videos on YouTube becomes a chore unless you have a decent Flash downloading and converting client so you can start the downloads and come back hours later to watch your videos.

As far as web browsing with iPhone OS version of Safari, I don't bother. The fact that it is incompatible with many, many websites makes it usable for only very limited web browsing. If there were other web browsers available for the iPhone OS I might use it to do more web browsing but Apple only allows their own web browser to be installed. As far as using different Apps for different websites, it is awkward to continually be opening and closing Apps simply to visit and use the content from different websites that a single, good web browser can do. So if I need to do any real web browsing / internet work, I open my MacBook.

This trend toward a closed model of computing that the iPhone / iPad represents is truly worrisome. If this is the future of computing, where the computer companies dictate to their customers what they can and can't install on their machines, I'd rather go back to pen and paper, public libraries, and real books.

Actually, browsing with Safari on the iPhone is great as long as you have a decent connection. The connection problem is the same with any browser on any mobile device, as they're all slow.
post #381 of 403
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/06/r...wc-launch-zun/

To everyone bitching about the ipad & iphone lack of flash support, MSFT is following Apple's lead and not supporting flash in windows mobile 7. Flash's days appear to be numbered..

It will be funny to watch Baller stumble through another keynote presentation tomorrow introducing mobile 7.
post #382 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsad23 View Post

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/06/r...wc-launch-zun/

To everyone bitching about the ipad & iphone lack of flash support, MSFT is following Apple's lead and not supporting flash in windows mobile 7. Flash's days appear to be numbered..

It will be funny to watch Baller stumble through another keynote presentation tomorrow introducing mobile 7.

Windows Mobile 6.5.x is getting Flash 10.1 this Summer-ish.So I have a feeling that Windows Mobile 7 will be based off the Zune HD OS which uses a the new Windows Embedded CE 6.0, not the OS in their current phones, which is why I think Flash cann't be supported for the time.

There is also the possible that Flash 10.1 Beta for WinMo was transferable to WinMo7 but it made IE too sluggish. That is the official reason from Mozilla as to why they disabled Flash in Firefox Mobile on Maemo.

I look forward to MS' announcement and demo. This is the most exciting thing to come out of MS in a long time. Perhaps 3 years too late, but it looks like they are finally getting a keen focus for WinMo.

PS: I like the Zune and if the iPod didn't exist I'd have bought a Zune and I fully understand that if not for the iPod existing the Zune couldn't have copied the iPod. \
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #383 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Windows Mobile 6.5.x is getting Flash 10.1 this Summer-ish.So I have a feeling that Windows Mobile 7 will be based off the Zune HD OS which uses a the new Windows Embedded CE 6.0, not the OS in their current phones, which is why I think Flash cann't be supported for the time.

There is also the possible that Flash 10.1 Beta for WinMo was transferable to WinMo7 but it made IE too sluggish. That is the official reason from Mozilla as to why they disabled Flash in Firefox Mobile on Maemo.

I look forward to MS' announcement and demo. This is the most exciting thing to come out of MS in a long time. Perhaps 3 years too late, but it looks like they are finally getting a keen focus for WinMo.

PS: I like the Zune and if the iPod didn't exist I'd have bought a Zune and I fully understand that if not for the iPod existing the Zune couldn't have copied the iPod. \

Of course, MS will prefer to support Silverlight over Flash anyway.

I'm curious s to whether the rumors of WM 7 not supporting multitasking any more than the current iPhone OS, is true. If so, they are going backwards, and their publicity over WM supporting it over the iPhone as an advantage will no longer be true. Also the new app store. That's copying Apple as well, and also negates their badmouthing Apple's method.

But if Apple does get MT in 40. It will be a reversal. I wonder how MS would handle that?

As far as the Zune goes. I've seen less than a handful here in NYC since it first came out. It's been plenty of time for it to have succeeded. It's failed. Quite honestly, other than some tech writers, I don't know of more than one person who bought one, and he did it just to be different. He's a friend of my daughters, and doesn't have a Zune anymore.

As the Zune has been so unpopular, I can't think of a single good reason why MS would want to Zunify WM 7. Two failures together just leads to one bigger failure. I can only imagine that it will serve to make WM 7 LESS popular.
post #384 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Of course, MS will prefer to support Silverlight over Flash anyway.

I'm curious s to whether the rumors of WM 7 not supporting multitasking any more than the current iPhone OS, is true. If so, they are going backwards, and their publicity over WM supporting it over the iPhone as an advantage will no longer be true. Also the new app store. That's copying Apple as well, and also negates their badmouthing Apple's method.

But if Apple does get MT in 40. It will be a reversal. I wonder how MS would handle that?

As far as the Zune goes. I've seen less than a handful here in NYC since it first came out. It's been plenty of time for it to have succeeded. It's failed. Quite honestly, other than some tech writers, I don't know of more than one person who bought one, and he did it just to be different. He's a friend of my daughters, and doesn't have a Zune anymore.

As the Zune has been so unpopular, I can't think of a single good reason why MS would want to Zunify WM 7. Two failures together just leads to one bigger failure. I can only imagine that it will serve to make WM 7 LESS popular.

Zune is a failure in marketing and sales, but the OS is sound. When The Zune OS 2.0 was designed I was saying back then, likely on these forums, that MS should use it for a touch-based version of WinMo. I think this is a good move for MS. They are following Apple, according to the rumours, but it's a focus that could lead to some very real sales in the future.

PS: Not mentioned, syncing will also be done via the Zune software, like the iPhone with iTunes.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #385 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Zune is a failure in marketing and sales, but the OS is sound. When The Zune OS 2.0 was designed I was saying back then, likely on these forums, that MS should use it for a touch-based version of WinMo. I think this is a good move for MS. They are following Apple, according to the rumours, but it's a focus that could lead to some very real sales in the future.

PS: Not mentioned, syncing will also be done via the Zune software, like the iPhone with iTunes.

Now that we have a much better idea of what the phone will be like, after the intro at Barcalona, I'm sort of wondering what they're thinking.

I'm seing comments that while they seem to have added some pretty good things, the interface is a mess. From what I see, I agree. I hope for their sake, it's incomplete, because it looks half assed.

The rumors about it being incompatible with all the older software seems to be a boneheaded idea. Even Palm has an emulator.

It doesn't really matter if it's better that old WM. People simply aren't interested in a Zune-like device.

And earlier, when you said that if it weren't for the iPod, you might have bought a Zune, well, I was thinking about that statement, and found it funny.

If there was no iPod, there wouldn't have been a Zune either. So you wouldn't have had that choice.
post #386 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Now that we have a much better idea of what the phone will be like, after the intro at Barcalona, I'm sort of wondering what they're thinking.

I'm seing comments that while they seem to have added some pretty good things, the interface is a mess. From what I see, I agree. I hope for their sake, it's incomplete, because it looks half assed.

The rumors about it being incompatible with all the older software seems to be a boneheaded idea. Even Palm has an emulator.

It doesn't really matter if it's better that old WM. People simply aren't interested in a Zune-like device.

It seems boneheaded, but I do agree with them start small and focused, which seems to be what they are doing right now. I am pretty excited about WM7 as a real competitor and think the October timeframe is a great time for a release if we assume the next iPhone will be arriving in the Summer. I don't expect the sales to be anywhere near the iPhone or Android-based devices, but I think it can be a player. We still compare and contrast to WebOS and it's sales are lower than I'd expect from a WM7 phone.


Quote:
And earlier, when you said that if it weren't for the iPod, you might have bought a Zune, well, I was thinking about that statement, and found it funny.

If there was no iPod, there wouldn't have been a Zune either. So you wouldn't have had that choice.

I've stated that before. I really do like much about the Zune, though usually when I make that statement I do note that the Zune wouldn't exist with the iPod. I guess I didn't on the post you read.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #387 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It seems boneheaded, but I do agree with them start small and focused, which seems to be what they are doing right now. I am pretty excited about WM7 as a real competitor and think the October timeframe is a great time for a release if we assume the next iPhone will be arriving in the Summer. I don't expect the sales to be anywhere near the iPhone or Android-based devices, but I think it can be a player. We still compare and contrast to WebOS and it's sales are lower than I'd expect from a WM7 phone.

The problem is that the market isn't was it was when the iPhone first appeared. It's now much more developed, with four new competitors that didn't exist early 2007. Apple, Android, Palm WebOS, and Nokia's Memeo, and soon to be appearing, Samsung's Bada.

Where will this fit it?

All of these platforms except Bada, have at least 1,000 apps, and most have tens of thousands, including Blackberry.

By the time W Phone 7 comes out, they will all have a lot more. This isn't good for MS as far as its competitiveness goes. How are they going to advertise that?

Remember what WM is aimed at now. Business. It's done well there because of its business apps, security, compatibility with MS's systems, etc. They're giving a lot of that up with this, to pursue the consumer market. To me, it's a mistake. They should have given up on that, and made it a much stronger competitor to RIM in the business market. Now, I'm certain that they'll lose much of those business customers.

All the people who have depended on certain business applications won't have them. Will those developers take a chance on the new platform? It's a good guess. With RIM coming up strong, and Apple coming up stronger, and with both of those companies with strong sales into the business market, there's a good chance those developers, or a large group of them, will leave MS and move to the others with proven sales. It's a circular spiral downward. Without the apps, loss of sales. Without the sales, loss of apps. We've seen it on the Mac platform during the late '90's through the early '00's.

And what about the loss of full multitasking? I suppose MS thought that if Apple could get away with it, they could as well. But it will be bad for their business markets where it's expected. It's also funny, because it's one area in which MS has blasted Apple about that they actually had an advantage, whatever the performance.

And really, what happens if Apple DOES introduce full multitasking with 4.0? How does marketing address that?

The whole thing is screwy.

Quote:
I've stated that before. I really do like much about the Zune, though usually when I make that statement I do note that the Zune wouldn't exist with the iPod. I guess I didn't on the post you read.

I just looked back, and you did. I didn't remember it.
post #388 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem is that the market isn't was it was when the iPhone first appeared. It's now much more developed, with four new competitors that didn't exist early 2007. Apple, Android, Palm WebOS, and Nokia's Memeo, and soon to be appearing, Samsung's Bada.

Where will this fit it?

All of these platforms except Bada, have at least 1,000 apps, and most have tens of thousands, including Blackberry.

By the time W Phone 7 comes out, they will all have a lot more. This isn't good for MS as far as its competitiveness goes. How are they going to advertise that?

Remember what WM is aimed at now. Business. It's done well there because of its business apps, security, compatibility with MS's systems, etc. They're giving a lot of that up with this, to pursue the consumer market. To me, it's a mistake. They should have given up on that, and made it a much stronger competitor to RIM in the business market. Now, I'm certain that they'll lose much of those business customers.

All the people who have depended on certain business applications won't have them. Will those developers take a chance on the new platform? It's a good guess. With RIM coming up strong, and Apple coming up stronger, and with both of those companies with strong sales into the business market, there's a good chance those developers, or a large group of them, will leave MS and move to the others with proven sales. It's a circular spiral downward. Without the apps, loss of sales. Without the sales, loss of apps. We've seen it on the Mac platform during the late '90's through the early '00's.

And what about the loss of full multitasking? I suppose MS thought that if Apple could get away with it, they could as well. But it will be bad for their business markets where it's expected. It's also funny, because it's one area in which MS has blasted Apple about that they actually had an advantage, whatever the performance.

And really, what happens if Apple DOES introduce full multitasking with 4.0? How does marketing address that?

The whole thing is screwy.

I agree with everything you've said but other option do they have if they want to stay in their market? The biggest problem (and I mean big) is the shear lateness to this party but putting that aside the rest seems pretty good.

The only thing I may have waited on, at this point, is when I revealed specifics of my OS and UI. We have rapid development of Android with the community quickly Borging any good ideas and the iPhone Os 4.0 demo likely a month away with plenty of development coming for the 3 months following, ready to take anything clever MS might offer, like strong social networking features. I'd have just teased with built up anticipation until about a month after the iPhone is released and no longer a surprise. I'd have an WM7 SDK ready at that time because then the interest would be high, but I'd definitely be released before the OS goes live, unlike what Palm did with WebOS on that front.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #389 of 403
I'll reserve judgement until the actually have a shipping process. A lot can happen in 8 months. I think MS needed to make a clean break from WinMo, it was just too old,

The primary problem is that MS should have done this years ago. They don't have much time to position WP7. They are already way behind in several ways.

MS needs to get as many developers as possible on board and ship with a full slate of apps. Otherwise it will be extremely difficult to build developer momentum.

MS really needs the Zune OS on their tablets. But with this being MS they will figure that out after Apple and Google dominate the tablet market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Now that we have a much better idea of what the phone will be like, after the intro at Barcalona, I'm sort of wondering what they're thinking.

I'm seing comments that while they seem to have added some pretty good things, the interface is a mess. From what I see, I agree. I hope for their sake, it's incomplete, because it looks half assed.

The rumors about it being incompatible with all the older software seems to be a boneheaded idea. Even Palm has an emulator.

It doesn't really matter if it's better that old WM. People simply aren't interested in a Zune-like device.
post #390 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I agree with everything you've said but other option do they have if they want to stay in their market? The biggest problem (and I mean big) is the shear lateness to this party but putting that aside the rest seems pretty good.

The problem for them is that their market isn't the consumer, it's business. And they're moving away from that, and pretty sharply. They're trying to move in a different direction than before, and I'm not so sure they have too much of a chance there. Really, what can they offer that isn't being offered? They may arrange things somewhat differently, but the services are no different that what's being offered elsewhere.

And, as you say, if Apple has a more social networked OS, then even that won't help them. No one else is standing still, and without apps or anything else to really stand out, they'll get lost. That's why I said they should have stuck to their hard core users; business people, and strengthened their offerings.

Quote:
The only thing I may have waited on, at this point, is when I revealed specifics of my OS and UI. We have rapid development of Android with the community quickly Borging any good ideas and the iPhone Os 4.0 demo likely a month away with plenty of development coming for the 3 months following, ready to take anything clever MS might offer, like strong social networking features. I'd have just teased with built up anticipation until about a month after the iPhone is released and no longer a surprise. I'd have an WM7 SDK ready at that time because then the interest would be high, but I'd definitely be released before the OS goes live, unlike what Palm did with WebOS on that front.

Well, I believe that Palm thought that if they waited until after Apple, they would have gotten lost in the rush. But, from my perspective in business, and advertising, that was a blunder. They should have waited 6 months. That would have been right in the middle of the iPhone's life, when things are at a lull. Then they would have been able to get more publicity on a more sustained basis, and possibly could have finished the SDK. At this point in history, not having an SDK finished in time to have a decent number of new apps available the first day of the phone's release is almost suicide.

It does no good for people to say that Apple didn't have one for a full year. Times were different, and the iPhone was so compelling on its own, that it sold very well anyway. Once the SDK came out, there was a ready customer base to sell into. And of course, complementing the phone was the Touch, adding another 6 to 8 million customers for most of the apps. So there was about 20+ million people ready for apps, which took off right away, with a well thought out SDK and store.

Palm had neither.

What to make of the MS offering? When will the SDK be available? What about a simulator? I didn't see any info about that, but it had better be by the summer.

Also, what's with the store? I can't tell if it will be the only way to get apps, or just the way to get certified apps. If the former, then they've Appleified even more - again.

Whatever happens with it, there won't be many customers for the software for some time.
post #391 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I'll reserve judgement until the actually have a shipping process. A lot can happen in 8 months. I think MS needed to make a clean break from WinMo, it was just too old,

The primary problem is that MS should have done this years ago. They don't have much time to position WP7. They are already way behind in several ways.

MS needs to get as many developers as possible on board and ship with a full slate of apps. Otherwise it will be extremely difficult to build developer momentum.

MS really needs the Zune OS on their tablets. But with this being MS they will figure that out after Apple and Google dominate the tablet market.

I think they're taking a big chance with what they've done. I don't know if they're aware of it, or they're so convinced they have a winner that it hasn't crossed their minds. They thought they had a winner with the Zune line, but were hedging their bets by not making predictions on how many they would sell. They don't release sales figures either. The numbers have to be figured out.

I'm curious as to how much under the hood work is almost ready. The word has been that they are falling behind, and it may not arrive until early 2011. We all know that MS is optimistic, but they revise release dates back. They've been doing that with this.

If they miss the holiday, they will miss a big chance. It's interesting that Apple releases the iPods for the holiday season, but the phone in the "dead" of summer. A phone isn't supposed to be a holiday gift, but it is.

The other question is about those developers. How many will actually produce apps, as opposed to mouthing their support, blah, blah, blah. A lot of developers are stretched thin these days. There were never so many competing application platforms as now. How many can they address? Without a single phone sold, will developers rush in, or wait it out until they see how the phone is doing? If the latter, that could kill it. What about all their business developmental partners? This is a totally new, unproven OS with unknown phones. Will they be looking askance at MS and towards Apple and RIM, if they aren't already doing so?

There are a lot of questions here.
post #392 of 403
Yes I'd raised this issue last year when the Palm Pre was supposed to destroy the iPhone. Developers are not going to be able to develop a native app for all of these different phones. The platform currently in place to be the great equalizer between all of these different phones is the web.

HTML5 and web apps are the most practical way to deliver content to all of these different phones at once. Its easier to adjust the UI on a web app for each phone than write and support an entirely different native app.

MS appears to even be making this difficult for themselves as WP7 will ship with IE, which does not appear to have any intent to fully support HTML5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The other question is about those developers. How many will actually produce apps, as opposed to mouthing their support, blah, blah, blah. A lot of developers are stretched thin these days. There were never so many competing application platforms as now. How many can they address? Without a single phone sold, will developers rush in, or wait it out until they see how the phone is doing? If the latter, that could kill it. What about all their business developmental partners? This is a totally new, unproven OS with unknown phones. Will they be looking askance at MS and towards Apple and RIM, if they aren't already doing so?
post #393 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

MS appears to even be making this difficult for themselves as WP7 will ship with IE, which does not appear to have any intent to fully support HTML5.

Mozilla has recently released Firefox Mobile for a single device. If they can't get a decent browser built for a mobile platform I have doubts MS can with IE in any decent timeframe.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #394 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Yes I'd raised this issue last year when the Palm Pre was supposed to destroy the iPhone. Developers are not going to be able to develop a native app for all of these different phones. The platform currently in place to be the great equalizer between all of these different phones is the web.

HTML5 and web apps are the most practical way to deliver content to all of these different phones at once. Its easier to adjust the UI on a web app for each phone than write and support an entirely different native app.

MS appears to even be making this difficult for themselves as WP7 will ship with IE, which does not appear to have any intent to fully support HTML5.

The one thing MS has is plenty of money, and the willingness to lose plenty of it in pursuit of its goals. We can look to the X Box and see how that works. They've lost an estimated 8 billion on the entertainment division since the X Box first appeared, but it didn't do anything to dissuade them to not give it up as every other company in the world would have. Same thing with their internet initiatives, billions lost there as well.

Palm has no billions to lose. If their sales don't perk up remarkably, or are bought out, they will go under.

So MS will likely keep plodding along if this doesn't turn successful. Eventually, they will gather developers and sales. That's what happens with monopoly software profits with a locked in market.
post #395 of 403
Does that mean Webkit is the best option for developing a good mobile web browser? You see the new browser for BlackBerry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Mozilla has recently released Firefox Mobile for a single device. If they can't get a decent browser built for a mobile platform I have doubts MS can with IE in any decent timeframe.
post #396 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Mozilla has recently released Firefox Mobile for a single device. If they can't get a decent browser built for a mobile platform I have doubts MS can with IE in any decent timeframe.

As I just said to Teno, MS has virtually unlimited funds to pour into any project they want to push. Despite their not having the best software with all that money, they do manage to outlast many of their competitors. If Mozilla had more than a small fraction of the sums MS can ladle into this, they could have done more. Apple also doesn't use the infinite funding model on a project the way MS does, or Safari would be much better than it is.
post #397 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Does that mean Webkit is the best option for developing a good mobile web browser? You see the new browser for BlackBerry.

As of right now, that seems to be the case.

I have not seen there new browser, are they not using WebKit as the base?


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

As I just said to Teno, MS has virtually unlimited funds to pour into any project they want to push. Despite their not having the best software with all that money, they do manage to outlast many of their competitors. If Mozilla had more than a small fraction of the sums MS can ladle into this, they could have done more. Apple also doesn't use the infinite funding model on a project the way MS does, or Safari would be much better than it is.

Having resources and spending them wisely too often seem to be at odds with each other. IE should be the fastest evolving, lightest weight browser out there if having money was the most import starting point. Of course, having very little isn't good either. Apple has done well with their spending which is one reason I continue to invest with them. They have made OS X a desktop and mobile OS and have made WebKit the de facto browser engine for mobiles, even if Safari for Mac OS X is slow.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #398 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As of right now, that seems to be the case.

I have not seen there new browser, are they not using WebKit as the base?




Having resources and spending them wisely too often seem to be at odds with each other. IE should be the fastest evolving, lightest weight browser out there if having money was the most import starting point. Of course, having very little isn't good either. Apple has done well with their spending which is one reason I continue to invest with them. They have made OS X a desktop and mobile OS and have made WebKit the de facto browser engine for mobiles, even if Safari for Mac OS X is slow.

The point is that MS doesn't need to have the best software. As has been said of them, it's good enough. That's all that really matters. Few companies care if the software they're using is the best. But they are concerned about long term support, and they know that MS will be there for that.

IE is getting better. It takes MS a long time to respond, but when they do, they often get it good enough so that people decide they'll live with it. There's evidence that IE's slide has slowed down, or possibly even stopped. Firefox has stopped growing, and Chrome isn't the only reason. Many people are moving to IE 8.

As far as mobile browsers go, only MS's own OS uses IE, or whatever derivative it is. Webkit seems to be taking over in mobile, and that's good, as it forms a standard, which happens to be a good one. Opera is different.

I don't find Safari on my Mac to be slow at all. In fact, it's one of the fastest browsers out there. It's in other areas that Apple is slow to add features.
post #399 of 403
WInMo has more marketshare than i would have thought. Perhaps it's not too late for MS to regain some ground.


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't find Safari on my Mac to be slow at all. In fact, it's one of the fastest browsers out there. It's in other areas that Apple is slow to add features.

After using Chrome for the last few days Safari is slow. The app itself, mind you, not the browser engine.

I ended up going back to Safari today because I miss the visual history and hated the very limited history Chrome shows from the Menu Bar. If not for that I would have likely kept it as my default browser despite the other niggling issues.

I hope Apple makes Safari just as fast. I also hope they allow for separate tabs as a process and give an option for tabs on top.


PS: At TenoBell. I just saw the announcement for RiM to go with WebKit. I didn't think they'd get one up so quickly, though I don't see a demo and there is no date expect for "2010". http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...blackberry.ars
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #400 of 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

We have to careful when we interpret numbers. Actually, it doesn't matter what the larger part of the public thinks, because this isn't aimed at the majority. I doubt that Apple really expects the majority of the population to buy one of these. That would mean that Apple would be quickly selling 100 million a year, and moving up from that, the way Gates predicted that by 2006 the majority of computers being sold would be Windows tablets.

What matters is that the portion of the public that might REALLY consider buying one has tripled from 3% to 9%, that could mean sales of 10 million a year. That's a realistic number.

In addition, if you read those numbers carefully, you'll see that the number losing interest is about the same as it was before, and the number that may be interested is more than before.

The numbers actually work out as:

Not interested before=== 61%
Not interested after==== 70%

Interested before====== 21%
Interested after======= 30%

So the not interested went up by almost 15%
But, those interested went up by almost 43%

Those figures are far more meaningful.

Ok seeing ALL the figures sure paint a different picture than I previously assumed. My apologies.

Quote:
I mean that you seem to want this to fail, and hope that by saying that it will, that you will convince enough people to not buy it, so that it will fail. At least, that's the impression I'm getting. Sometimes the screen name people choose is spot on in telegraphing their objectives. Wouldn't you say? Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, by no means am I saying it will or am wanting it to fail. It's just that I guess it just seems a bit odd that the iPad's success will really rely on app development. And I am 100% sure that the apps developed for the iPad will indeed be the driving force behind most of it's sales. I just wish that Apple put a bit more into it. But then again, you never know what they'll throw in in the next firmware update.

Oh and my "kill8joy" screen name I use everywhere. And funny enough it has nothing to do with my objectives or intentions. Back in highschool when I was taking typing classes, we had to set a password so I picked on that I only needed to type with one hand. Lame I know.

Quote:
It's tough to know where someone's coming from. I'm reading, in the same post from more than a few people, including you, from what I understand of what you're saying, that it's not different enough. I'd like to know why that would be a bad thing, if true.

What this is, is an extension to the iP/T platform. That's what it's supposed to be. It does more, as it's supposed to, while still remaining familiar enough to the large number of people who are used to the iP/T.

It's actually plenty different, was what I meant. I think what I was trying to say there was that Apple has released a product that is SO different that it makes other similar products (eReaders) look dull in comparison. Apple definitely knows that cool shit sells.

Quote:
You see, that remark makes it difficult to take the other remarks seriously, but I'll continue trying. The PC tablet failed because it's a terrible implementation of a tablet. Windows is the wrong OS for such a purpose. People don't need something like that on a tablet. MS never understood that. Now they're trying to shoehorn it into even less powerful devices, and it's even worse.

It's why Apple hasn't put the Mac OS into the tablet. It doesn't fit there. If the tablet was much more powerful, then with a revision of the GUI, maybe it would work. But otherwise it won't.

Was making a joke there, but I agree with you that there's just no way to give these things enough power to run a more desktop-like OS. Just not possible at this point. I guess I hoped Apple could do it somehow. Who knows, maybe an "iSlate" will be a Pro offering of the iPad, as is with the MacBook line now but with an overhauled OS.

Quote:
It has nothing to do with Flash. It has to do with those apps having to work with different OS's and different cpu's. Meaning that they're not full fledged apps on any platform. They're a compromise. They aren't fast enough because of the lag time from slow connections. They can't leverage any of the hardware, because they don't know what the hardware is, because they're so far abstracted from it, being that they mostly live in the browser. Opening and saving large documents over the web is also a pain, and as we're finding out, it's dangerous to do so.

It's going to take years before that becomes more than a curiosity for a large number of people.

Can't argue with an intelligent statement.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Consumers lose interest in iPad after Apple's unveiling - survey