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

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am willing to bet 7" tablets won't be around in 2 years. If you want something that small, then get a phone.

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.

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.

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


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




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!


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?

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.

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.

Thanks!

Maybe they'll increase the size of the iPhone. That way they aren't offering a smaller tablet, they're offering a bigger phone \

So good of you to say!

Best

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.

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?


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...


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.


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


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!

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).

.

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

Priceless. I love it...

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.

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

Always glad to be of service.

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

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

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.

LOL - excellent points. Sadly logic is wasted on the haters...

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?

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?

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.

- 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.

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

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"

.

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.

.

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."

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.

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.

Good point.

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.