or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM: Problems with 7-inch tablets only exist in Apple's 'distortion field'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM: Problems with 7-inch tablets only exist in Apple's 'distortion field' - Page 5

post #161 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Steve is right, and wrong at the same time. The iPad screen is an ideal size for the iPad's interface. A 7" screen is too small to be efficient and would be extremely cramped. However iPhone screens are 3.5" and perfectly usable. It's all about how you design the UI.

I agree with Steve that the 10" iPad is the ideal size, but he is either intentionally deflecting or failing to understand that the competition is going to sell millions of 7" tablets even if they're not the ideal size.

I don't know if that is true.

For example, the best shown so far is the Samsung Galaxy Tab. They plan to build 100,000 a month.

I think Apple has a significant advantage in economies of scale -- less-expensive parts and production costs, pre-ordered (reserved) parts and production lines/facilities.

The Pixel Qi people they can manufacture a display for $20 -- but they can't schedule any production as the lines are not available,

There is a lot more to this game then appears to the naked eye -- and Tim Cook is master of the game.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #162 of 345
there's a lot of hot air floatin around.

Bottom line, if anyone including apple thought they could makes buckets of money off a 7" we will indeed see the 'it's available for pre-order for xxx dollars". You can bet on that.

The RIM thing, I think they pull it off, I don't know where it'll go, but I do know blackberry does have a pretty loyal customer base and they re expanding internationally. Not sure why they're loyal myself, but hey, to each they're own.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #163 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by appl View Post

The Droid has a big, beautiful screen AND great battery life. Seemingly, Motorola didn't let the balance tip too far one way or the other, and got the trade-offs both into a sweet, sweet spot.

Your arithmetic and specsmanship don't appeal to average consumers.

Actually, the regular consumers does not give a damn about trade-offs and sweet spots, only techies and geeks care about that . Does it work consistently as promised and can I use the damn thing right now are what appeals to the average consumers.
post #164 of 345
10 is better than 7 for me, and Im tired of RIM telling me I should think 7 is good enough. I can make up my own mind.

Sure 7 is greatbetter than a phone size, for many tasks... but not THAT much better, while being far less portable. If youre going to give up portability, then give me something closer to printed paper size... like an iPad.
post #165 of 345
Wow... there's a lot of 'love' floating around here.

At the end of the day... it's all in the stock. Everybody else can suck it.

AAPL 300+

There's not one company, that everyone is fighting for in this thread, that can match that. Yeah, Wallstreet is under Steve's 'distortion field' too.

Whatever.
post #166 of 345
I am willing to bet 7" tablets won't be around in 2 years. If you want something that small, then get a phone.
post #167 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

10 is better than 7 for me, and Im tired of RIM telling me I should think 7 is good enough. I can make up my own mind.

Sure 7 is greatbetter than a phone size, for many tasks... but not THAT much better, while being far less portable. If youre going to give up portability, then give me something closer to printed paper size... like an iPad.

Rather than a 7"-er from Apple, I'd like to know where the 9"-10" tablets from Samsung, Dell, BB et al are.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #168 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Rather than a 7"-er from Apple, I'd like to know where the 9"-10" tablets from Samsung, Dell, BB et al are.

They're all on the shelf waiting for someone to design a proper tablet OS for them.
post #169 of 345
Distortion or not, doesn't matters to most of the consumers.

Having used a 7" android-based tablet, I would gladly say its use is much limited due largely to the small screen sized. Surfing, word processing, etc are a pain. It is so bad that it now serve as a video player for my nephew, to keep him entertained while we are out dining, etc.

My brother who was so into 7" tablet in the past, is now convinced and disappointed with 7" as he found out for himself how limited its use is. He can't even do decent work with it due to the small screen. And after I got my iPad, he tried for himself and come to agree that indeed 9.7" is a better size to do some decent work like word processing, emailing, surfing. But the iOS platform does have limitations that also affects usagability for his work. Thus, in his perspective, if a device that's combo of iPad h/w and android OS, he will be glad to jump onboard.
post #170 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"For those of us who live outside of Apple's distortion field

...says the company with a demo only unit that they didn't let anyone outside the company touch!

Quote:
"we know that 7-inch tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web experience," Balsillie said in his response.

For a company with absolutely no tablet experience they sure know allot!



Quote:
"We also know that while Apple's attempt to control the ecosystem and maintain a closed platform may be good for Apple, developers want more options and customers want to fully access the overwhelming majority of web sites that use Flash."

Developers want to make money, and Apple is delivering the eager customers with low barriers to entry - more-so than any company in history, and better than any of their current or impending competitors.

Customers also don't want flash, they want web sites that work and don't trigger plug ins that will crash their device, bog it down or drain the battery. Flash is becoming less and less relevant under the withering assault from the iOS devices. Live it up why you can! Will Adobe even ship flash on the majority of non-iOS devices before it's irrelevant? Interesting race indeed!

Quote:
"As usual, whether the subject is antennas, Flash or shipments, there is more to the story and sooner or later, even people inside the distortion field will begin to resent being told half a story."

As usual, competitors with no direct answer to the substantive points of the iOS ecosystem grasp at straws like antennas and flash - and continue to be steamrolled by Apple's success. Perhaps that's the real resentment going on, no?
post #171 of 345
I am so relieved that SJ said no 7" iPads. The type of application that suits iPads is quite different from the iPhone - sure, there is some cross-over, but the "killer apps" for iPad just would not work on a 7" machine.
post #172 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Flash is a lost cause, but I find myself agreeing about the 7" tablet. I would love to ditch the too small iPhone and the too big iPad and just use one mid-sized device. It would suit my needs better than either of the two current alternatives and I know i'm not alone. I've heard the same thing from far too many people for us all to be wrong.

I also find that Steve's remark about the sandpaper is just rude and juvenile. ....

I agree with all that you said; however, could it be that he really is just being a bastard and Apple has its own 7" tablet around the corner? Maybe ole Steve is just kicking sand in their eyes while his product isn't ready? At least I'm hoping that's what happened, I'd really like a smaller iPad.
post #173 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

My Dad died in 2008. Same boat. Touched me, dude.

Thanks!
post #174 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

I agree with all that you said; however, could it be that he really is just being a bastard and Apple has its own 7" tablet around the corner? Maybe ole Steve is just kicking sand in their eyes while his product isn't ready? At least I'm hoping that's what happened, I'd really like a smaller iPad.

Maybe they'll increase the size of the iPhone. That way they aren't offering a smaller tablet, they're offering a bigger phone \
post #175 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

My dad died this year at 87. He was sitting at his new 27" iMac and had an aneurism. I have 23,000 e-mails from him to go back over, Dad's are a great miss.

So good of you to say!

Best
post #176 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post

Fanboi got nailed!

It's like listening to the chortles of a couple of adolescents in a drainpipe when one of them farts.

BOT, So Google has openly stated that Android doesn't belong on a tablet but are being ignored by Samsung and the rest. RIM tacitly acknowledges that BB6 isn't up to dealing with even 7 inches of screen real estate and they buy up QNX to give them something to throw at it. HP gives up on Windows for tablets/slates, and buys PalmOS.

And the trolls crawl out to chortle and gas about the response of one of RIMs CEOs who was goaded into flinging silly lame-ass items like RDF because they don't have a working 7 inch model even on the bench (according to some well-placed insiders I know). What they have is a prototype which can't run most of the legacy Blackberry apps, and there are no new apps ported yet. Interface is borderline theoretical ala Torch, and not ready for primetime.

Archi and Blackie, I seldom open you out of the ignore list due to the extremes of your commentary and your own very potent Delusion Fields, but I figured what they heck, even I enjoy really bad humor and commentary - like a good car wreck.
post #177 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

problem for most CEO's competing with Apple is that they likely have a better product but people still buy Apple.
it's a headscratching exercise for most.....
you can list half a dozen products in the relevant sectors (mp3, phone etc.) that are better than anything Apple has offered or will offer.

If by "better" you mean more meaningless long checklists of features, sure.

If by "better" you mean a superior and well integrated user experience, your wrong - other companies fall short. And it's not just me - look at Apple's market cap which is a direct reflection of the agreement with their philosophies.

I submit the reason that people like you are scratching your head is your in the minority, and you are focused on things that matter to a very small minority of people. A minority that is also online and hang out in forums like this and tend to be represented out of proportion with reality since most "normal people" wouldn't be hanging out in forums like this talking about very "inside baseball" subjects like, well, this entire web site's focus.

Long feature lists matter to geeks with yardsticks. For everyone else, how a device works and accomplishes what they want is what matters more. Guess who there are more of - geeks or everyone else?

Quote:
Macs are rubbish for the money

Actually part for part, Macs are very cost competitive. Most people who have a problem with Apple and price are trying to compare Mac's to cheap PC's with minimal features. Apple doesn't compete in the bargain basement space - there is no reason for them to. Just because they don't offer the equivalent of a $400 netbook doesn't mean the MacBook is overpriced It just means Apple isn't targeting your desires. Oh well - guess you will just have to buy elsewhere...

Quote:
and iTunes is a joke.

iTunes is very good if you use it like designed - let it manage the files and manage your content via meta data. Most people complaining about iTunes, for whatever reason, want to tend files in folders. Why? This is 2010 - let the computer do mundane file management. If you have relevant information like artist/album/title in folders instead of metadata, there are plenty of utilities out there that will help you correct that and get the information out of the file structure and into the MP3 tags where it belongs.

Once you have the proper meta data, smart folders are very powerful and iTunes works quite well. I have over 40,000 tracks - there is no practical way to manage that manually. iTunes handles it with ease.

Quote:
they are masters in 'desperately average'

They are masters at "desperately useable" - which is directly reflected in the popularity of their products as well as their market cap.

Quote:
I fully agree with Mr RIM and I hope he finds a solution soon.

Ha! The "solution" is to actual create products people want, not just products that have long lists of features. Pretty simple, actually - the problem is you have to be willing to either leave stuff out, or perhaps drop it to increase usability. Hard for most companies to do when there are people like you whining about "desperately average" and other such nonsense. The irony is your complaints are actually perpetuating that which you are complaining about!
post #178 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It doesn't surprise me that iPad sales have tanked, there are just to many glaring issues with this rev one device. For one people are starting to realize the thing doesn't have the RAM to make it a good investment. More so they are realizing the screen size of the device really sucks. It is simply to big for many uses and is combined with a terrible aspect ratio.


This is all BS, there is absolutely nothing stopping the construction of usable Controls on an intermediate iPad. Nothing.

Besides the sales of similarly sized E-Book readers ought to cause people to wise up here. Sometimes portability for a given level of functionality is everything.

OTOH, the slightly greater usability the 7" screen gives you over the iPhone, is not worth the extensive loss of portability

The screen area difference is massive.

Frankly I think his point was to confuse the market!

I don't think this is the case either. IPad is a device with extremely limited functionality that has to be supplemented with very expensive add ons. Be it the cellular modem or the camera connection kit. In the end iPad is one expensive kit.

Well if you look at iPhone that advantage isn't being passed on to consummers. IPad of course doesn't have competition right now but you would have to be delusional to think it is a good buy. All I need to do is offer up Apple TV and its low price to squash any arguement about iPad being a good buy. For the most part the same basic hardware.

Beyound that why in the hell does iPad get so expensive for modest increases in flash memory? Seriously if Apple is getting such good deals on parts why doesn't it pass along these savings.

The biggest problem I have with the above is this idea that the sofyware is so perfectly tuned for iOS devices. Clearly it isn't as can be seen by the rapid drop in support for older iOS devices.

And that is a good thing?


The real Apple tax is convincing people that their high prices are in actuality a bargain. Snake Oil salesman could learn a thing or two from Apple.


This is tough, because I both agree and disagree-- and I know you get your facts right and don't shoot from the hip.

Here goes:

I don't think iPad sales have tanked (mellowed is a better term) -- According to Tim Cook they don't yet, have enough supply in the channel to meet anticipated holiday demand... They pissed off CostCo, by refusing them the iPad.

I don't think the RAM or specs matter much to most consumers (only us techies), The consumer looks what it can do for him.

Every aspect ratio is terrible -- practical for some things, not for others.

I agree that there is nothing stopping construction of usable Controls on an 7" tablet. Except no one has done it. The Galaxy Tab has provided its own UI on top of Android that is scaled to their 7" form factor -- for system apps: email, calendar, contacts, etc.

To many, portability/pocketability is a major issue. I certainly would consider a 7" form factor (as well as one greater than 10").

I agree, that it is very Jobsian to "confuse the market" and deflect attention. I suspect they built and tested several sizes of iPads, That the price / capability sweet spots were the technology in the 10" iPad. I believe these sweet spots will evolve and other sizes will be offered.

I think that Apple released the iPad form factor they did, when they did because it bought them a year advantage and first to market (setting the bar) advantage over the competition,

The key price is $499 -- everything else is the "art of price / forecast". The existence of a real product at those specs and price forced the competition back to square 1. They were expecting something at $1,000. Apple delivered a usable tablet at $500. How'd they do that... More importantly, how can we match that? By tiering price and features the way they did, Apple can measure demand, gain additional profit, provide choice, and protect devices at lower cost (iPod Touch) and higher cost (MacBook).

Ahh.. the software tuned to the devices. Like it or not these are appliance devices-- not meant to be a long term investment -- rather a current realization of practical state of the art technology. As you know, software evolves much more slowly than hardware. The new hardware capabilities must be exploited by software. Legacy software support is too expensive and restrictive for this class of device. I have 3 day-1 iPhones (all running iOS 3,1)--one has a bad touch area on the bottom of the screen-- mostly unusable except for some testing. Another was hit by a baseball bat and has a chipped/cracked screen in one corner. A little packing tape makes it usable. These 2, gen-1s, plus a 3G are SIMless and used as PGPs by the gran kids -- in lieu of buying $150 game players and $40 games. We've certainly gotten our money out of them.

The same is true, to some extent, with iPads -- 2 of these are cheaper and more flexible (transferrable to a another vehicle, motel room, etc.) than a car entertainment system. The grandkids use them in lieu of a TV to stream content form our MediaCenter, play games, stream from netflix, read books. We have a couple of hundred apps (1 purchase) that run concurrently on all our iDevices. Many are games, quite a few are creative or educational.

My youngest grandson, 10, is saving his money so he can buy an iPad -- he learned to tell time on one (missed some school when it was taught and was too embarrassed to tell anyone) -- there's an app for that!

I expect that we'll get our money out of the iPads, many times over -- its the funnest computer I've ever used (dating back to an IBM 650, circa 1956).

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #179 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post

Vertical integration always fails.....always will.

LOL - yup, that's what Apple is doing, failing.

Priceless. I love it...
post #180 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead View Post

I completely agree. The more Apple products I've purchased, the more integrated everything has become and the more seamless and efficient my computing devices have become. It would be hard to move away from this and because of this, when I wanted a new phone recently, the iPhone was the ONLY smartphone option for me. I either got an iPhone that played well with everything I had or got a basic mobile phone for just making calls (and used my iPod Touch for everything else). I'm so glad I got my iPhone.

Well said, Canucklehead...so many out there are really missing the point of Apple. Yes, a Sprint phone can have 4G (but battery life is suspect at best) and maybe an Android phone can have one or two "wiz-bang" features but for an overall eco-system, from iMac (desktops) to portables, (Laptops/iPads) to iPhones and I have to include AppleTV here, there is no equal.

Best regards and I too would not consider any other phone!

Chris

PS. I know a lot say competition from Google, MS, RIM, etc., is good and I do agree. But consider Apple's iPod line....they have had 70%+ market share for a number of years now and yet they're continuing to improve the line-up. That's a testament to Apple's basic philosophy.
post #181 of 345
Did he really use the term distortion field? When did legitimate CEOs start talking like forum members? Strikes me as unprofessional and tantamount to saying that people who like the competitor are stupidheads. It's just a dressed up kind of name calling
post #182 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post

It's like listening to the chortles of a couple of adolescents in a drainpipe when one of them farts..

Archi and Blackie, I seldom open you out of the ignore list due to the extremes of your commentary and your own very potent Delusion Fields, but I figured what they heck, even I enjoy really bad humor and commentary - like a good car wreck.

Always glad to be of service.
post #183 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I don't know if that is true.

For example, the best shown so far is the Samsung Galaxy Tab. They plan to build 100,000 a month.

I think Apple has a significant advantage in economies of scale -- less-expensive parts and production costs, pre-ordered (reserved) parts and production lines/facilities.

The Pixel Qi people they can manufacture a display for $20 -- but they can't schedule any production as the lines are not available,

There is a lot more to this game then appears to the naked eye -- and Tim Cook is master of the game.

.

Excellent points...especially, "...pre-ordered parts..." As you say, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye! Thanks for the insights.


Best
post #184 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Me too. If it was not for Apple we would all be working on dusty, creaky, plasticky, beige Windows computers ... a wireless mouse but with a receiver on your desk connected to the tower with a cable, IE 4, Word, etc., etc.

yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.
post #185 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.

Yep, you're right I do remember that. Thanks for the reminder!

PS. I'm glad he did!

Best
post #186 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago View Post


Any SONY MP3 player is far better noise production wise than anything the iPod has ever offered. Heck even the Creative ones are better and the Zune HD is better for noise and picture..

Vertical integration always fails.....always will.

First, there is more to a music player than sound quality or noise production. As evidenced by the freakin market. The simple fact is that the difference in sound quality is negligible to the majority of users.

As far as vertical integration. Usually the main problem posed to companies that incorporate vertical integration policies is updating their supply chains and infrastructure to keep up with advances in technology. Apple has seemed to mitigate that problem pretty deftly. Should they ever stop handling it well, yes they'll fail. For now, there's no reason to think it will beyond your hope.
post #187 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

He doesn't know what it will cost.

He doesn't know when it will be available.

He doesn't know it's battery life.

He can't show you one because, it doesn't exist.



Now, that's a reality distortion field!

LOL - excellent points. Sadly logic is wasted on the haters...
post #188 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun View Post

Did he really use the term distortion field? When did legitimate CEOs start talking like forum members? Strikes me as unprofessional and tantamount to saying that people who like the competitor are stupidheads. It's just a dressed up kind of name calling

Haven't read the whole thread, maybe someone pointed this out, but seems interesting to me that the executive officers of the competition get so distracted by looking at the distortion field that they spend enormous amounts of time responding to Mr. Jobs' comments. Would be also interesting to contemplate their time investment in reading things like this thread. Crazy like a fox that Mr. Jobs. Eh?
post #189 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias03 View Post

Wow... there's a lot of 'love' floating around here.

At the end of the day... it's all in the stock. Everybody else can suck it.

AAPL 300+

There's not one company, that everyone is fighting for in this thread, that can match that. Yeah, Wallstreet is under Steve's 'distortion field' too.

Whatever.

The company I work for can match that.

Apple (APPL) @ Mar 6, '09 $85.03, today $309.50 an increase of 264%
CNH Global (CNH) @ Mar 6, '09 $6.57, today $39.72 an increase of 505%

Apple stock is doing well but so are other companies. So your point is?
post #190 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

yes, this was true in 1997. what was also true in 1997 was that Microsoft helped save Apple from bankruptcy. if there are two people to thank for us, in 2010, not having "beige Windows computers" and "IE 4", one of them is Bill Gates.

That isn't quite what happened. In late 1996 Apple bought NeXT for $429,000,000, but the next year they so regretted that decision and had to get $150,000,000 from Microsoft or they would have boarded up the windows in Cupertino? That wasn't the case.

What happened was Apple had MS by their "micsrosofites" over stolen QuickTime code, but a long litigation wouldn't have helped Apple in the short term. They also needed Office for Mac to help keep the platform viable. So what they did is wipe e slate clean with a deal that would benefit both of them, which included MS investing into Apple for a minimum time frame to help calm investors and potential buyers who may be concerned about the future of Apple, as they surely should have been.

But keep in mind it was a strategic move by Apple, not a desperate grab at cash to keep the lights on for another week. If it was just a grab at some quick cash then why get it from MS who is seen as there greatest competition? If it was MS vying for control of Apple andhaas all the chipsin this agreement then why were the shares non-voting? The only answer I can come with that MS didn't have the power in that deal. You can already see Jobs' startegic maneuvering this early in Apple's resurrection.
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 #191 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Yep, you're right I do remember that. Thanks for the reminder!

- off-topic

i suspect some people here forgot the $150 million investment made by Bill Gates. he could have very easily sat back and watch Apple die in 1997.

- on-topic

it's far too premature to dismiss the RIM PlayBook because it hasn't yet been given a chance in the marketplace. i suspect by mid/late 2012 we'll know of sure whether RIM made a miscalculation is the PlayBook.
post #192 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

i suspect some people here forgot the $150 million investment made by Bill Gates. he could have very easily sat back and watch Apple die in 1997.

Microsoft didn't invest in Apple, they settled with them. Gates couldn't have "sat back and watch Apple die in 1997" - far from it since they had $1.2 billion cash on hand. Granted, they were in rough shape, but Microsoft's money was far from a desperately needed infusion that many like to make it out to be

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...362B533B9.html

Quote:
it's far too premature to dismiss the RIM PlayBook because it hasn't yet been given a chance in the marketplace. i suspect by mid/late 2012 we'll know of sure whether RIM made a miscalculation is the PlayBook.

Assuming it ships any time soon
post #193 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That isn't quite what happened. In late 1996 Apple bought NeXT for $429,000,000 and the next year they so reverted that investment and had to get $150,000,000 from Microsoft or they would have boarded up the windows in Cupertino? That wasn't the case.

What happened was Apple had MS by their "micsrosofites" over stolen QuickTime code, but a long litigation wouldn't have helped Apple in the short term. They also needed Office for Mac to help keep the platform viable. So what they did is wipe e slate clean with a deal that would benefit both of them, which included MS investing into Apple for a minimum time frame to help calm investors and potential buyers who may be concerned about the future of Apple, as they surely should have been.

But keep in mind it was a strategic move by Apple, not a desperate grab at cash to keep the lights on for another week. If it was MS vying for control of Apple and they had the pole position in this agreement then why were the shares non voting? The only answer I can come with that MS didn't have the power I that deal. I think you can already see Jobs' startegic maneuvering this early in Apple's resurrection.

AIR, it was a strategic move by MS too -- they needed to keep Justice at bay * and the demise of Apple would have led to a flurry of investigations.

* MS nor Apple had, yet, learned the power of Washington lobbyists.

... Apple had MS by their "micsrosofites"

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #194 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Microsoft didn't invest in Apple, they settled with them. Gates couldn't have "sat back and watch Apple die in 1997" - far from it since they had $1.2 billion cash on hand. Granted, they were in rough shape, but Microsoft's money was far from a desperately needed infusion that many like to make it out to be

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...362B533B9.html



Assuming it ships any time soon

You must be careful citing DED

MS did invest in Apple and received non-voting stock. It sold the stock some years later -- at a profit, AIR.

Too tired to look up links.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #195 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Open your eyes Balsillie...


Apple is not telling people what to think... they are explaining "the why" to your future dismal sales numbers! Doofus!!




You have never heard of Manufactured Consent have you? Google "Noam Chomsky", when you have a chance, in-between all that productive stuff you do on your Iphone of course.
post #196 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by agolongo View Post

You have never heard of Manufactured Consent have you? Google "Noam Chomsky", when you have a chance, in-between all that productive stuff you do on your Iphone of course.

Interesting. You apparently have no idea what Noam Chomsky is talking about. And it's "Manufacturing Consent."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #197 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias03 View Post

Wow... there's a lot of 'love' floating around here.

At the end of the day... it's all in the stock. Everybody else can suck it.

AAPL 300+

There's not one company, that everyone is fighting for in this thread, that can match that. Yeah, Wallstreet is under Steve's 'distortion field' too.

Whatever.

Yup. Well let me clarify, CNBC and BLOOMBERG are under Steves distortion field. Wall street just wants to steal your money, so go ahead go long on Apple. Friendo.
post #198 of 345
The 10" iPad with its 4:3 aspect screen measures 5.75" x 7.75" with 44.5 square inches of area.

a 7" tablet with a 16:9 aspect screen will measure approximately 3.5" x 6" with 21 square inches of area.

the smaller size has only one big advantage - it will weigh about half as much as the iPad, and the iPad is tiring to hold up with one hand for an extended period. the 7" tab also has a second moderate advantage - at 6" wide, its 16:9 TV/movie display is only 25% smaller than an 8" wide video/movie on the iPad. and it has a third moderate advantage - compared to the iPad, but not other OEM's 10" tablets - it runs Flash content (more or less).

so if the dominant purpose of your tablet is going to be watching movies/video, including lots of website Flash streaming video, you maybe might be happier with the 7" tablet. go for it!

but i can't think of any other advantage of the in-between form factor of a 7" tab (unless you have cargo pants pockets it will fit, maybe, and cargo pants are what you wear everywhere). either something is pocket-sized, or it ain't. and if it ain't, it's going into some kind of carry bag where size of this scale is not an issue at all. most carry things are still designed to hold letter paper size stuff, good ol' 8.5" x 11".

the iPad's bigger size, besides all the obvious advantages of more than twice the viewable/usable screen area, allows it to contain a proportionally larger battery (because the size of the electronics are almost the same whatever the screen size), which means longer battery life - which is a very big advantage in real life (and also why it is heavier).

and as many have noted, the narrower aspect ratio of a 16:9 tab combined with a smaller 7" size makes many uses impractical in portrait mode, while its compressed height in landscape mode likewise constrains others (notably, web page and map display). the iPad's 4:3 aspect is much more adaptable to the full range of potential tablet uses.

perhaps one reason we are seeing 16:9 Android tabs is because Google intends to establish that new form factor for Google TV apps, and so those apps would also work great on such an Android tablet. whereas Apple's 4:3 iPad apps would work ok on a TV screen via Apple TV, but not great (probably why Apple has not yet enabled Apple TV to run apps, until it has a new generation of 16:9 iOS apps ready).

by the way, few have mentioned it, but the iPod touch is in fact Apple's mini-tab. and (do the math) Apple sold about 7 million of those last quarter!! and we might see its screen size creep up a little in the future to 4" or so. but it will always be pocket sized.

so adding the touch to the iPad, that's 11 million tablets Apple sold in the last 3 months. and for the peak holiday quarter, usually that number doubles or even triples ... you can see Apple is flooding the market with new iPad retailers, and even Verizon, so they're going for it.

finally, why did Jobs come down so hard on the 7" tab, calling it "DOA," instead of just hyping the iPad's 2X bigger screen as "best"? well, i guess he's putting a big chunk of FUD out there to undercut the competition. but he does happen to be right ... these 7" tabs just ain't gonna sell. even the fandroids will wait for 10" models coming next year.
post #199 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

Actually, the regular consumers does not give a damn about trade-offs and sweet spots, only techies and geeks care about that . Does it work consistently as promised and can I use the damn thing right now are what appeals to the average consumers.

Good point.
post #200 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

The 10" iPad with its 4:3 aspect screen measures 5.75" x 7.75" with 44.5 square inches of area.

a 7" tablet with a 16:9 aspect screen will measure approximately 3.5" x 6" with 21 square inches of area.

the smaller size has only one big advantage - it will weigh about half as much as the iPad

Cost is a significant driver behind the 7" size adopted by RIM and others. Significant. I can't stress that enough.

Apple is so vertically integrated when it comes to design that they can piece together a device at an extremely competitive cost. Others wouldn't be able to produce a 9.7" tablet and be cost competitive with Apple. Instead, they've chosen to reduce the size of the device so that costs are lower and supplies of the display are more readily available. With a 7" screen RIM and Samsung can compete at a lower price point than Apple is likely willing to do with its 9.7" iPad.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • RIM: Problems with 7-inch tablets only exist in Apple's 'distortion field'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM: Problems with 7-inch tablets only exist in Apple's 'distortion field'