iPad: 50,000 sales in 2 hours, Apple TV bumped, mysterious app icon - Page 6

Apple has forced the iPod into being a slave device? Apple has forced the iPhone into being a slave device? Forcing is pretty damn hyperbolic as it was designed as a PC accessory from the ground up so no forcing was needed.

I'm over the whole 'i' naming scheme but when this was clearly and obviously intended to be an accessory device I was glad they used it, thinking that people would realize the intended usage by the naming. Apparently not. \

That's not the goal of the iPad. At least not in this release. For me it can't replace a mac because I'm a programmer. It should be a fantastic supplement to a mac, though. something to keep up with email, access the web, monitor my business, etc. while I'm away from my computers.

I do a lot of this with the iPhone today, but there are many cases where I really could use a bigger screen but don't need a full computer.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...t_leap_forward

Computerworld: Apples iPad is computings next leap forward
Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 11:54 AM EST

"If we look at the history of computers, it's easy to chart their evolution: as time passes, they get smaller and more powerful -- and their design changes to keep up with the advance of technology. It's been nearly two decades since the laptop's invention, and in that time we've moved into an era where portability is as necessary as a constant connection. In this new era, the laptop form factor has become increasingly unwieldy," Michael DeAgonia reports for Computerworld. "Unless you're sitting down, using one is an awkward balancing act; it's not exactly the best fit for an increasingly mobile world."

"For years, PC manufacturers fought the inherent awkwardness of their products by building smaller and smaller laptops," DeAgonia reports. "But a small netbook or laptop still relies on the same, increasingly outdated design: flip-up screen and computer/keyboard base."

"Then, in 2007, Apple changed the mobile game with the iPhone. The screen (and one main button) pretty much are the device. With the iPhone, the keyboard became virtual," DeAgonia reports. "The iPhone form factor and software combination created an immersive, yet mobile, experience -- and it showed what mobile computing really is. Suddenly, people everywhere realized they no longer had to have laptops to get work done on the go; they could do it on their iPhones."

DeAgonia reports, "With the release of the iPad on April 3, Apple is moving to the logical next step: Portable, focused computing is getting a bigger screen... I believe the iPad will usher in an age of computing for people who, until now, have eschewed computers as too complicated to understand and use. It will be the delivery on the promise Apple CEO Steve Jobs made with the introduction of the first Macintosh in 1984... Apple abstracted the concept of computing with the iPhone. And with the iPad, it seems to be abstracting the computer itself, which was always Jobs' goal."

DeAgonia reports, "When we look back a few years from now, we may see that Apple again steered the course of computing in a new direction."

You guys make some good points, including here. I think you're right in saying in this release it's not there yet as a stand alone device. Despite the ability to create iTunes accounts on the iPhone, and perhaps the idea that media will be streamed rather than stored locally (replacing the need for the syncing we cant avoid at the moment), the iPad offers a glimpse of how thin client type devices might serve us, but we're not there yet.

Notwithstanding all the reasons why it can't happen yet because of all the reasons you guys have outlined, I can't help but have this small idea that it would be nice to wipe the slate clean with computing power at home and try to live with these new devices as the sole means of production (perhaps excluding for work). We wiill all just have to give it a few years still and see whether the limitations are slowly addressed as the device matures, so we can program, write extensively, edit photos, run our lives and do everything we imagined from a slick, small package.

The iPod and iPhone do not have 10" screens and hardware capable of running apps like the iWork suite. By targeting the netbook market — and even offering the ability to use a desktop keyboard — Apple clearly considers the iPad more of a basic-needs computer than an accessory, but didn't take the few extra steps required to make it truly stand alone. The only thing keeping it limited to "accessory" status is a little bit of software; the same is most certainly not true for the iPhone and iPod, so clumping all three together from a functionality standpoint isn't really fair.


By that logic the iMac is clearly an accessory, not a computer

1) 10" is too small a desktop OS. A finge-based input as the primary navigational tool is not built into desktop OSes. netbooks and other tablets suck and have always sucked because of this shortsightedness from vendors.

2) They intended it to be an accessory device or they wouldn't require it to be synced to iTunes like all other iDevices. If they wanted it to be able to do everything poorly they would have stuffed Mac OS X into a netbook and been done with it.

3) The HW is capable of running iWork for the iPad, not iWork for Mac OS X. This was designed from the ground up for the iPad. They did not simply cram the desktop version of iWork into the iPad and call it a day.

4) The only thing keeping the iPhone from running the Zune OS is a little bit of software. What's your point? Apple has intentions for the iPad, you don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. If you think they've made a mistake then buy another device. If you think no one has made the right device then make billions by making your own. There are no other options.

5) The 'i' comment was making fun of people who are seeing this as accessory device as a "desktop replacement" and then saying that "Apple fraked up" because it's can't replace their desktop. WTF!

With that in mind, I can't help but think then as to whether the iPad could get serious dev attention, unofficially, to make it be the device that it has the potential to be by filling in the functionality gaps.

First day estimate now at 120,000.

http://www.businessinsider.com/day-1...ds-sold-2010-3

1 & 3.) Who said anything about the iPad being a desktop OS replacement? My point is that the iPad is almost everything a person who doesn't need a desktop OS (and it's accompanying complex apps) would need. At this juncture, the desktop OS (and "real" computers) could almost be reserved solely for people who run things like the Adobe Creative Suite, Final Cut Studio, 3D Apps, 3D Games, and software development tools.

2.) You're suggesting that either the iPad had to sync with a computer running iTunes to obtain your purchased media, or it would have to suck at everything and run Mac OS X in it's entirety? Being a little dramatic, aren't we?

4.) Again, being a little dramatic? Writing a driver that would allow an iPhone/iPod to sync directly with an iPad, and making the iPad download all purchased media from the iTunes store once a user enters their iTunes username and password, is just a little simpler than porting an entire operating system to a different hardware device, don't you think? The latter isn't even a software change so much as it is a change in the iTunes Store's policy; allowing users to redownload all of their purchased media if it's not already on their device should be a given.

And if Apple can write software to allow importing JPEG and RAW photos from an SD card (directly or via the camera), then allowing an iPhone and iPad to sync directly to one-another with a 30-pin to 30-pin cable should be a no brainer for them. It's not like I'm asking for an iPod version of Maya, here.

Original iPods didn't run Mac OSX. I have no doubt the tablet will be able to display the RAW image and not the embedded JPEG - but time will tell.

If it really can display RAW images, Apple should be advertising the hell out of that feature; being able to import your photos and preview them on an iPad while out taking photos would be a huge boon for photographers, and I can't think of a better reason to pay extra for more than 16GB of memory.

I think we'll discover a couple of months from now that it was an underestimate.

Apple is convinced that a large percentage of those who bought netbooks bought them because they were the cheapest and most mobile way to access the Web, send email, and watch video/movies. They weren't bought with content creation in mind. In some ways, the netbook (and notebook) is overkill for what these users really want. Apple has also noted that for most netbook owners or those considering a netbook, it would be a second computer. Thus, for now, the iPad has been built to be a second computer.

Thus, the iPad is Apple's netbook alternative. In the same way that Apple's computers and iPods cost a little bit more than the competition, the iPad will cost a little bit more and provide a much better user experience.

The mistake you're making is comparing the full breadth of the netbook to the iPad, and thus, they look like different things. You need to compare the user wants - and when you do, you find that for a large percentage of people, the netbook and the iPad are competing to fulfill those user wants.

If you put it that way then we don't know crap if its an underestimate or not until the thing actually sells this April. Otherwise that's just your opinion, and nothing else.

Before the iPad (and ignoring the consequences of using Windows), would you have considered a netbook to fill that gap?

Agreed. I'd add that at the intro, Apple showed 3 categories of devices - iPhone/iPod, iPad, and notebooks. (The fourth category would be desktops but Apple was just talking mobile.) Notebooks can do more than the iPad, and the iPad can generally do more than the iPhone/iPod. But over time, as technology (CPU/GPU, battery) advances, the devices in each category become able to do more, and start doing things that the device in the next category up can do.


One will be able to re-download all their apps directly to the iPad. And after the first sync with iTunes, there will be no need to use the notebook or desktop iTunes again to download music and video since you can download directly to the iPad. Apple's purchase of lala makes me think that we're not too far away from cutting the cord to notebook/desktop iTunes for content.

If you use MobileMe, photos, email, etc are already taken care of. What's left is OS updates and backups. There's no reason an OS update can't happen directly to the device over the Web, if the Web could also be used for backups. The main concern is reliability of Web backups and I would say it's not ready for primetime. An intermediate step could be an updated Time Capsule that could sync directly with the iPad for backups.

What else could it be, other than an opinion?

Do you have a point here that you're trying to make?

The mistake I'm making? Go back and read again.

Read again. Apple is going after the "netbook" market.

So say you, but not me. If Apple was going after the netbook market, they'd be selling netbooks. They know that this would be a fool's errand, so they are not selling netbooks. Instead they are selling a device which is extremely difficult for anyone to confuse with a netbook. The mistake you are making is assuming that if they share any functionality, that they are substantially the same. To me it's obvious that Apple wants more than any other thing to distinguish the iPad from the netbook market.

I think what he's saying, which I agree, is that the iPad and netbooks will have a lot of crossover, likely with customers who would have previously chosen a netbook for light mobile computing choosing a lightweight tablet instead. Not just the iPad but Android-based tablets when they finally come to market.

Sure, if you want to draw with such broad lines, but I think that overlooks, or at least tries to overlook, Apple's fundamental approach -- which is differentiation, not similarity. I think it they'd count any comparisons between the iPad and netbooks as a failure of their basic strategy. As for Android based tablets, we'll make that judgement when the time comes.

I'd compare this to the IBM-PC and Mac back in the 80s. They were competing for the same customers for the same basic uses, using a broad line again, but they weren't in any way comparable products types.

I've owned two netbooks. One I installed OSx86 on and the other I kept with WinXP. Both worked in a pinch but they were horrible. Not just the small 16:9 display which only had 600 measly lines for reading text but a modern desktop OS just wasn't designed for such a small screen and doing anything is just a chose compared to a real notebook, even a cheap one for $100 more than the netbook costs. I think a lot of people will realize that netbooks are no match for the iPad and other similar devices. Now, a netbook with a version of Android designed for a netbook would certainly work better but I doubt anyone will try it unless Apple paves the way first.

I think the differences are substantially greater than you allow. I'm not saying that some people won't choose an iPad over a netbook, now that they are given the choice. Obviously some will. But watch the pitch for the iPad -- I would be absolutely aghast if Apple even hinted at it being a netbook competitor. It's clear to me that they're hoping to create a new winning device class, not to change an old losing one. This quite unlike the Mac, which was pitted directly against the PC, literally from day one. Since that time Apple has learned that they don't win by going head-on, but they can win by going around.

I agree this is a completely new class of device since it's not the typical, expensive tablet that is just a keyboard-less notebook with a touchscreen. I don't think they'll market it that way, but during the keynote Jobs did clearly contrast netbooks to the iPad. That is a direct comparison and I think it's clear that this device is the better answer for the accessory computing device between your smartphone or PMP and your PC. In that sense I think "Apple is going after the "netbook" market", to quote mark2005.

not really for two reasons

- when a desktop OS gets crammed into a netbook, everything feels too cramped. From the trackpad, to the keyboard to the apps running on the screen.

- other than price and ignoring the OS, a netbook isn't any more convenient than a MacBook Air, which has a full size keyboard and trackpad and a large enough screen.

For the situations I'll use it, the iPad is more convenient than any netbook running a desktop os. And for the situation we're using the first one I ordered for my company, the ability to use it while standing up and walking is huge because that's specifically the situation we're going to use it. ANd a netbook simply isn't a viable option for that.

Apple is counting on there being lots of people like you and me.

And I think there are.

Exactly.

For those who really want to create significant content while mobile, Apple is saying you really need a MacBook Air to be happy doing what you want. A netbook is a poor substitute even though it is cheap.

For those who don't need that, Apple says the iPad is better than a netbook because it will be more responsive and natural.

That about covers both parts of what was previously the netbook market. For those who still insist on getting a netbook, Apple says you get what you pay for.

I don't have any personal experience with a netbook. I've seen them at Best Buy. But I did get a chance to see several people use them at the library. It seemed all of them were very uncomfortable trying to manage the tiny keyboards and screens. I couldn't get it out of my mind that they were trying very hard to adjust to the tiny form factor. They didn't look happy.

The iPad, in my opinion, will not be marketed in any way as a netbook replacement. SJ has probably asked his marketing people to not even mention it is a computer. I feel Apple will do their best to focus on the ipads ability to be your personal assistant. For hospitals, retail outlets, real estate agencies, car dealerships, you name it, the iPad will be in its own new world. Netbooks will not be able to cope in this particular walk around, ready to use, easy to use iPad world. I can't imagine someone trying to use a netbook in these situations. For that reason, I think the ipad is just what Apple says it is; a completely differnt category.

As you, Dr. Millmoss, and others say, Apple will not call the iPad a netbook replacement.

BUT as they talk about the iPad, they will be sure to point out all that is wrong with a netbook. And they will be aiming iPad squarely at many of the same people who were/are interested in a netbook as a cheap second mobile computer. So even though the iPad is a different animal from the netbook, it is aimed at the "netbook" market as an alternative solution.

Look at Apple's three categories. There are only three. Is there a netbook category? NO.

According to Apple, people who bought netbooks either had
- use cases that matched the middle category (iPad) in which case the netbook has too many features and results in it being too complex and slow/unresponsive, or
- use cases (content creation) that matched the notebook category for which the netbook is underpowered, cramped, and display-challenged.

Apple is trying to paint the market differently. In Apple's view, there is no "netbook" market. You are either in the iPad market or the notebook market. No matter how you cut it, the iPad is Apple's alternative solution for lots of people who were/are interested in netbooks. (The other solution is the MacBook Air.)

This is essentially what I was trying to say, so we probably don't disagree that much. Perhaps the difference is that I'm looking at this more from Apple's marketing approach, which I am quite certain won't be to compare the iPad to netbooks. At least a part of the audience for netbooks won't be attracted to the iPad at all because they either need or perceive the need for their portable device to have access to desktop Windows software. We've heard plenty from those people right here. They are the principal group of iPad detractors, it seems. Apple's market will be everybody else, pretty much, who doesn't have this need or perception. They may even get some who do, but I don't think this is the target audience -- which is why I say Apple isn't targeting the netbook market. The "everybody else" market is much larger and much more amenable to the message and the product.

I wish SJ hadn't mentioned netbooks in his presentations at all. I guess he felt obligated to do it since the netbook and the iPad are so close in price. Netbooks are just what they are. An inexpensive way to have a notebook form factor in a device that cost very little to own. It tries very hard to maintain the current feeling of notebooks as best it can. It doesn't try to blaze any new trails other than expense. For that, they are a reasonable alternative.

My point is the iPad is just not designed to be a netbook as much as people try their best to make them compete for the same market. They do similar tasks but in totally different ways. You either like the netbook way or the iPad way. If you need flash, maybe a netbook is for you. If you need maximum flexibility while on the move, maybe the iPad is for you. As Sly and the Family Stone said so many years ago, 'Different strokes for different folks'.

As I said earlier, the ipad is a totally different market. I'm sure after it is in people's hands, there will be plenty of critics running tests matching a netbook against an iPad and trying to determine a winner. There are no winners or losers here. If you feel a netbook with its form factor suits you, get a netbook. if you feel an iPad suits you, get an iPad. We can all get along. We just have to know what we want. I'm glad there is a choice. For me personally, there is no question the ipad is for me.

I think he mentioned netbooks because they are what people already knew about. The iPad is a new thingy so he had to relate it to what people already know, and to say how it was similar and different.

Some people "are" or "were" looking at a netbook because that was their only option, until now.

Though many who bought netbooks really didn't need more than what the iPad offers, like three of my nieces. They bought because it was cheap and small. They found out that it's also pretty slow, but they can live with it because it was cheap and small.

On the other hand, my nephew, who has an aluminum 15" MB Pro, also bought a netbook, because he really needed the features, but found it too cumbersome to lug his MBP everywhere. But then he was totally embarrassed when he made a presentation to a group of 100 people, and the Star Wars clip (.mp4) he played/projected to kick it off, just stuttered and stuttered and was totally incoherent. Kinda left him playing catch-up through the rest. (Of course, since it was running Windows, he should've tested it beforehand.) In any case, from what I've seen of the iPad, that would not have happened. You get what you pay for. He knows that now.

You could be right, it could be a larger market than I realize, perhaps since I've never been tempted to buy a netbook. I already know that they are cheap, slow and small (none of which counts as a virtue in my book). I do wonder how many people buy them without knowing their limitations beforehand.

I think we all agree with that. Apple is clearly going after the Flip Mino camera market with the latest iPod Nanos, yet both are different class of CE. They even compared them in the special event just like Apple did with the iPad to netbooks, but that is the last time I've seen any other comparison between them from Apple.

Sure. My objections come when somebody describes the iPad as a "netbook killer" (or words to that effect), as if this is Apple's intention or their marketing plan. If someone believes that they can't possibly go on the road without Word, then they aren't going to even consider an iPad. I suspect Apple is perfectly happy to let people who insist on running heavy software like Word on light PCs such as netbooks, to keep on doing.

For two years, analysts kept asking Apple about netbooks. When's Apple going to get into this "market"?

For two years, Apple responded (paraphrasing): we don't know how to build a computer that isn't a piece of junk for less than $500 . Netbooks have cramped keyboards, displays that are too small. But we have some ideas. (See AAPL conference call transcripts at seekingalpha.com for specific quotes.)

Obvious interpretation: A netbook (as sold by others) is a piece of junk. But we have some ideas.

Apple has spent two years looking at this "market." When Apple launched the MBAir, Jobs specifically said at a minimum, serious work (content creation) required a 13.3" display and a full-size keyboard. Anything less for serious work is a piece of junk.

But Apple also saw that a large number of netbook buyers weren't interested in content creation. And those ideas became the iPad.

My nieces/nephew experiences in my prior post fit in with what Apple saw. My daughter has a cheap notebook running an Athlon chip - full-size screen and keyboard, but even she finds that it's just so slow at any OS operation. And that's faster than any Atom chip.

Netbooks are a reasonable alternative for very few people. It's a piece of junk for the rest. (Apple says it, and I buy it! A fanboy I must be.)

Yeah, I've never liked the "killer" rhetoric.

I wouldn't trust that person much - the name translates to The Agony.

But we will see, eh?