Originally Posted by kill8joy
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.