iPad, Apple's 'Mac of the masses,' predicted to sell 21M in 2011 - Page 2

Add to that the lead times to obtain critical parts supplies and to reserve critical production facilities-- even if you have a great product to offer, it won't matter if you can't bring it to market!

.

I agree. As far as Apple goes SJ has stated many times that Apple is not motivated by numbers or money. Sure, high sales and high profits are great and tend to validate the design and engineering efforts but the driving force is that it has to be fun. Unless they can pursue goals they are truly passionate about - great hardware design, great user experience etc - it just isn't worth the effort. Some cynics think that's all rubbish but I believe it is at the core of the company and why other companies find it impossible to be 'as great'. The reason, for instance, that Apple continuously tops the customer satisfaction ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20...ag=mncol;title ) is that they genuinely care. Not just to increase the bottom line but to improve the user experience. And that is why Apple will not, for now, venture into all these areas that they are not truly passionate about.

Apple definitely has a long term plan. But every company has that. Plans that are continuously revised and change from time to time. The difference is that Apple has a deep understanding of what its core values are and are single mindedly driven by these. They are also guided by a very sound business model, of course but it is only because of my previous point that that model works at all.

Well, it's also worth pointing out, in this regard, that the current marketplace is not at all the same as the computer market back then; there is no equivalent of the IBM of those years, today, and, without IBM, Microsoft would never have been the company we know.

Well, maybe. We should keep in mind that analysts are always conservative. They don't like to make predictions that probably aren't going to be exceeded. So yes, he's probably shooting on the low side, but I doubt he's going 50% low.

A very interesting point.

I've gone from big-box computing to laptops and can't wait for the moment when I can manage what I need to from the iPad. I pick one up now and I can't see how it will will do what I need now, but just like the iPhone that's become a lot more useful over the last 3 years, I expect iPad to get more useful in even less time.

Ouch!


It took 40 seconds to power up to the point of being usable. With my iPad, I get in, do my thing, get out in less time than that. Just how productive is watching a desktop OS boot?

I assume, that it was turned off, or else they'd need to charge it first!

I think this is HP fulfilling a commitment to MS (badly).

The real deal will be the Palm version.

A button to turn on the virtual kb-- LMAO.

.

I really think HP gave up on releasing the Slate. What happened is the iPad came in a much lower price point then HP expected, the Slate was suppose to retail for about 800.00 and when they tried to build one to compete with Apple all they could come up with is a netbook without a keyboard.

Last time I saw the final specs on the Slate they were really poor when trying to run Windows 7. It was really nothing more then a low end netbook without a keyboard.

Yep. And that's all the device in the video is, a low-end netbook with a poorly implemented touch interface.

I thought 40 sec was pretty good for Windows 7 for I presume is an Atom CPU.

Note the physical button for Control+Alt+Del function. That right there says you need to rethink the entire concept.

I think Extremeskater is dead on. While this seems like a legit device from HP I have to assume it's not something they are still working on. They hooked be focusing on a WebOS tablet. However, I used to think HP was well managed, but they or rid or their CEO so who knows what the freak they are planning. Maybe this tablet was far enough along that it's worthwhile for even a few dozen-thousand worldwide sales over the next year or two.

Maybe it's bad marketing that's holding BlackBerry down. Let me explain in two different ways:

1. I was listening to a radio show this morning, and the host discussed the McDonald's Happy Meal concept. Basically, McDonald's markets Happy Meals to kids, hoping they'll get their parents to take them to McDonald's. Once the kids enjoy what they get, then they get an emotional attachment to McDonald's. That generally makes kids loyal to McDonald's for life. There's a ton of market research that confirms this. Look around and you'll find it.

2. I saw a post on AI about how kids love using BBM, and this post about why that is. Basically, BBM makes messaging others definitely easier, and possibly cheaper, than with other phones.

So let's combine the two factors. I've been seeing a commercial that features BBM, but 1) they don't show exactly, feature-by-feature, what's so great with BBM, and 2) the commercial itself is marketed towards adults, on channels watched mostly by adults. Even the people in the commercials are older, and it's in a barbershop.

Forget commercials with adults in barbershops, being placed on the Lifetime and USA Network. Instead, what if Blackberry films a bunch of high schoolers, like, 100 of them, being given Blackberries for a couple of months, and have them praising the benefits of the phone (and especially BBM)? Then, air the finished commercials on networks commonly watched by teenagers, like MTV and the Disney Channel? Plant the seed of BlackBerry into the text-messaging youth, not adults focused on apps. (Besides, once there's an appreciable user base of BlackBerry 6 phones, app developers will develop plenty of apps for the OS, anyway). Once you hook the youth into BBM, then they're hooked for life.

Why does Apple have to be involved? What's to stop someone from integrating an iPod touch or iPad in a control system?

It's just a matter of time...

Again, just because someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they are insulting. Nothing he posted was a personal attack. Rather than fretting over his delivery, how about countering his content?

I think you have that backwards - and I think that's why HP bought Palm instead of remaining a "me too" windows licensee or Android distributer.

In the long term, if HP does get it I expect them to be the only real competitor to Apple. Windows phone system 7(or whatever the heck they are calling it) I see as stillborn - it will live longer than the Kin but never amount to much. MS has screwed over their partners too many times and there are too many other viable alternatives (many of whom are far more established). This is a mature market and MS does not have a good track record of competing in established markets without having to heavily subsidize their entry from their Office/Windows cash cow.

Android may move volume, but it will never drive revenue that Apple gets and that HP could get.

If Nokia can react and copy Apple fast enough they may survive enough to continually be chasing Apple - but even that is debatable. Yes, they sell a ton of phones but at little profit. Sales numbers are great for trolls to compare their e-penis sizes, but at the end of the day real winners are determined by profit.

Add a built in slot in car, appliance and whatnot for iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, create an app to pass over control, then viola.

There you go...

i find your lack of understanding what is going on in those post surprising and your question dull.
rather than fretting over my delivery why don't you stop playing like you don't know what was really being said?

We're on the same page!

I believe that HP is coming out with 2 tablets. The first (a prior commitment to MS) will run Windows (maybe Windows Mobile, when available).

The second will run WebOS -- this is the device HP wants to build.

If HP is wise they will make the 2 devices look as different as possible.

.

Not sure about the inclusion of kleenex ... hahaha .... but I agree with everything else you said.

Mac of Masses?? Man, that sounds like a champ being cuddled and patronized at the same time.

I'm not too sure about that ... don't forget it was years before IBM even figured out the true value of the home PC market and since Gates had already figured out that software was more valuable than hardware and since Apple wasn't going to buy windows ..... he would have found somebody, I'm sure.

Remember the line from the introduction event in 2007 when Steve said re: the iPhone touch interface? ...... "and we have patents, boy, do we have patents".

gates was peddling basic and whatever else they could peddle. an OS wasnt the focus (if my memory is working) and it really just became a case of ibm wanting cpm and cpm being brain dead f'd it up so bill jumped all over it with his 'os'. ibm was kicking a$$ with dos pc's vs apple II cuz ibm was fer real men at work and apple II was a toy. :-^)

I wonder how long it will take Microsoft to figure out the true value of the tablet market, then develop a WinPhone7-based tablet OS? After all, the software's more valuable than the hardware.

Just like with the cellphone OS, if MS builds the tablet OS, the hardware makers will come.

With less than a full year of iPad sales behind them I think it's premature to say it's a mature market. In 3 to 5 years maybe, but that still leaves a lot of time for various competitors to get into the mix. I don't think anyone is going to catch Apple anytime soon, if ever. .... just my 2¢

More or less correct. Microsoft is an accident of history that is unlikely to be repeated.

Well said, couldn't have expressed it better myself. This is exactly why it amuses me so much when people use the "it's just a big ipod touch" argument against the iPad. It's all right on front of them, but they just don't see that's the whole point. As if the ipod touch or the iPhone revealed itself to Apple out of nowhere. The whole iOS ecosystem and the devices based on it have all been planned years before even the first iPhone was announced, and apple now seems to be executing this long-term strategy with almost military precision. Nothing like msft.

We're basically on the same page ... you're right about basic being first but the point I'm trying to make is that his focus was software ... and once he was exposed to the GUI that Apple was working on .... windows was developed and at that point with, or without IBM I'm sure Gates would have found a way to sell his OS. In any case the whole deal was beneficial to both IBM and MSF.

yes, agree. that is the big difference between bill and steve. bill was more software programmer/nerd with an eye for opportunity and steve was more 'this is a great product, we should sell it.' (as in he knows a good thing when he sees it.

What's really interesting is how some of these things come about. In an interview (I think with Walt Mossberg) Steve was telling him that Apple was working on the iPad first but when one of his engineers showed him what he had come up with re: touch interface .... they put the iPad on the back burner and started on the iPhone first.

.

Psst.....

Wanna' see somethin'?

As of this AM, there are 702 iPad medical apps in the app store.

That's 59 pages, of 12 apps each, of medical iPad apps.

I made a collage of pictures of the iPad App Store pages.

It's too big to paste here.

I saved it in PDF format.

If you have a browser (like the iPad's) you can pan/zoom and see the listings in detail.

You can see it on my MobileMe at:

http://web.me.com/dicklacara/ForWeb/MedApps.pdf


It takes a while to load!


That's what a tablet ecosystem looks like for the medical profession!


I guess those doctors will just have to give up their deep pockets -- and just get bigger pockets!

.

MSFT was selling BASIC and some hardware peripherals. When IBM came calling, MSFT didn't have an OS (but they knew of one that could be bought cheaply).

MSFT finessed IBM, give them credit for that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS

.

So I read a lot about iPads replacing laptops and all, but I don't understand one aspect of that. I think my iPad is a great device and plan to get more (for the kids), but I'm still required to have a computer to sync it with through iTunes. How else would you update the OS or firmware, or back it up, etc? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me, the iPad will always be "add-on" device, not a replacement. Am I missing something?

After getting and using my iPhone 3GS shortly after release, I could not see a market for the soon to be released iPad. To my thinking, it seemed to be little more than a large iPod.
But after checking one out at the Apple Store, I could no longer stand to use the cramped iPhone.
I now have 2 ipads one of which I bought for my wife, who was previously computer phobic but now uses her iPad for EMail every day.
It's a damn good thing I don't make a living as a Product Marketing guy.

It's funny how he called the iPad " the Mac of the Masses" because many Mac owners want simplicity and use their macs for email, web browsing and Skyping. This isn't an insult btw. I own a Mac Mini myself and really like the OS UI and the sleek apps developers make for them.

We live in a society where individuals and families often have multiple computers. Quite often, the iPad can replace at least one of them.

With the MobileMe overload disaster, Apple learned the lesson: Don't change everything at once -- roll out smaller, digestible changes over time.

A lot of stuff had to happen to get the iPad out the door with a successful launch. They had an established process (iTunes install, activate, backup and sync) in place. Why risk the iPad launch by putting an untested process in place.

Now, Apple can take their time to build a process that does not require (but can take advantage of) another computer to support an iPad.

I suspect we will see that process put in place after the holidays, and after the new server farm is operational.

There. likely, will be other shoes dropped when some organizations, industries or groups announce massive acceptance of the iPad -- talking tens or hundreds of thousands at a pop, here.

Having said all that, the current requirement only matters to those who don't own, or have access to a computer. It will become a problem if Apple wants to expand into [computer] virgin territory.

.

Psst... and they're just getting started!

It's a good decision to have two iPads. The whole idea that an iPad could be shared among the whole family breaks kind of down after the first one or two weeks of usage. You just don't want to stand in cues to get access to a divice like the iPad. I will have to wait for our second iPad until spring. I hope the iPad 2 will be out by then

They could produce labcoats with velcro stripes.

That HP slate video was pretty sad. It's a product of compromises. It has a keyboard button because the keyboard exists in a layer above the OS- Windows has a very poor software keyboard, so they had to fake a hardware keyboard. And it must be running very slow hardware (Atom), in the name of battery life, but that makes everything sluggish. And the ctrl-alt-del button's function is obvious

I'm sure there is demand for such a device, but not if it performs poorly.