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 7

post #241 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

I read Steve's full comments. It didn't sound as though he were speaking about 7" being inadequate for a touch interface, but rather apple wouldn't introduce a 7" tablet unless there was a way to do so without requiring developers to recode their tablet apps.

Seemed more like he was speaking about resolution independence(!!!) Regardless, I expect we'll see an ipad mini with the same resolution as the current ipad in the future.

That is prescient!

Resolution independence is a necessary part of the solution. For some apps it will be enough.

The iPhone app Koi Pond looks as good at 2x on the iPad as it does in 1x on the iPhone. The main reason is resolution independence within the app -- provided by OpenGL. A secondary reason is the controls (touch areas) were designed for the small screen and scale up well. An app written like this would, likely, scale well to any (reasonable) size and aspect ratio.

The main (play) screens of many games scale quite well-- Angry Birds, for example.

However, resolution/scaling is only part of the problem. There also are considerations for:
-- the desktop (maybe screentop or perspective is a better word) - the home screen and subsequent screens
-- navigation among them
-- a file system presentation, and navigation within it
-- App views, their content and navigation

The latter, currently, is the biggest problem:

1) Most app views designed for the small screen to not scale up well
-- they look ugly
-- images are poor resolution (blocks replace pixels)
-- text and controls have jaggies (no anti-aliasing)
-- screen real estate is wasted, rather, not exploited

2) Most app views designed for the large screen to not scale down well
-- they look crowded - intimidating, actually
-- images, often, are too small to be recognizable.
-- text and controls are, often, too small to be readable and touch-manipulatable

What is needed is a new display-size-independent way of displaying and navigating app views and their perspective of the content (the screentop can be considered as the system perspective) .

I highlight the word perspective for a reason -- i believe it is the key to the solution.

We need to be able to design our apps so they will scale well -- anywhere from an iPod Nano watch, to a massive video wall -- and all points in between: iPhone; small tablet; larger tablets; big-assed tables,; that 50" HDTV; those large touch displays coming into vogue by TV channels, say, presenting election results, traffic, weather, etc.

I believe what is needed is a different kind of 3D approach-- where everything (virtually) is on the display. Items of interest can be brought to the forefront -- into perspective, if you will.

When selected, these items automatically enlarge to show greater detail -- and adjacent (related) items are all around (if not displayed) off the screen.

You can manipulate these related items (pinch, flick and scroll) in 2D as we do now -- think of a giant CoverFlow with pinch.

Or, you can change perspective to another item in your 3D space -- kinda' like a 3D TimeMachine display.


Said another way, we should be able to design apps based on the content we want to be available to the user at any point in time.

The user should be able to change perspective in 3 dimensions to suit his needs.

The "system" is responsible for navigating, managing and displaying this content in 3D space -- as it moves off and on the screen, fading from view into the background -- coming into view in the foreground.

.
"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 #242 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.

Not quite true. Microsoft was caught with its hand in the cookie jar. They were found to have stolen the QuickTime source code for use in Windows. That $150 million investment in Apple was probably going to be a lot cheaper than the lawsuit that would have followed instead.
post #243 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

That is prescient!

I suspect that Apple have implemented all manner of display-size-resolution-independent solutions already.

Here's my guess. It does not work.
The best interfaces are a result of design decisions which are based on the designer creating interfaces for.
1) A known display resolution
2) A known display size
3) A known input method

Apple now address themselves to making the workflow and design process easier.... And not a technical solution which will try to make a one-size-fits-all work.

C.
post #244 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by agolongo View Post

Success has alot more to it than creating products people want, its also convincing people that they want your product. Which Apple has done very succsessfully, sublimely, while leaving them with the illusion that they are still a consumer who is in control, even though their purchase was irrational.

So Apple's biggest success appears to be mind control. Somehow just watching an Apple commercial gives one an instant lobotomy?
post #245 of 345
it did me. I ran out and bought iphones, and a whole pile of macs.
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 #246 of 345
After reading this article all I could think was "man these guys like to hear themselves talk". If you listen to both sides of their argument and more importantly, look at the tablet industry you can see that both companies are right and wrong at the same time. Both have great ideas, but they both fail to look at the full picture.

Apple, the iPad is an outstanding product! In world where manufacturers ideas of tablet computing was an 8 pound computer with a rotating touchscreen, you gave us a product that we could Carry every day in one hand without having to see a chiropractor. It is a beautiful design! And you are correct, I believe the 9.7" display is the perfect size. But steve, come on... FLASH PLAYER!

RIM, The playbook is a great attempt at breaking into the tablet market. From the pictures I have seen and the specs, I ink you are on the right track. But with the 7" screen I think you will have to learn to live with criticism. RIM understands that people want flash player and the ability to attach peripherals. The thing RIM needs to remember, is that the thing that drives sales for RIM is not so much the device, but the enterprise manageability.

In my corporate world I have thousands of users that don't get much say in what device they will carry. That decision is left up to those few, the proud, the IT Geeks. We are tasked with evaluating each new device that is requested and determining how secure it is as well as how much control we can exercise over the device in the event it is lost or stolen. At the end of the day RIM gets the call. And when it comes time to look at tablets, even with the 7" screen RIM will most likely come out on top, not necessarily because they have a better tablet, no, more likely because I can attach it to my Blackberry Enterprise server, control the apps that are loaded onto it, and wipe it clean if it is lost or stolen.

If Steve Jobs truly wants to leave the competition in the dust, all he needs to do is recognize that most corporate environments want the kind of control that they get with a Blackberry Enterprise Server. And create an enterprise management solution for the iProducts. He would then have executives singing his praises and rejoicing in the streets because they could have an iPad or even an iPhone, sync their mail and not have iT glaring at them in the halls. OK, maybe they won't throw a ticker tape parade in Steve's honor, but it is a big piece of market share that would be up for grabs!
post #247 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.

You're right. The customer just looks at the big beautiful screen, and knows that his friend gets good battery life with his Droid X.

He also knows that there is plenty of great software, so it will work as he wants it to work.
post #248 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias03 View Post

At the end of the day... it's all in the stock.

Naw, its all in the user experience. Big, beautiful screens running Flash videos with all your friends drooling while looking on. That's what new smartphone buyers want. And Apple is losing a whole generation of them.
post #249 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaicka View Post

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. .

I know. It is even worse, in fact MUCH worse, on an iPhone.

This is due largely to the small screen size. Surfing, word processing, etc. are a pain. Just like you said. You are totally correct. A seven inch screen is MUCH LIMITED, and therefore, a 3 inch screen is much MORE limited.

When will these fools learn that unless you have smaller than a 10 inch touchscreen, it is much limited?
post #250 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I suspect that Apple have implemented all manner of display-size-resolution-independent solutions already.

Here's my guess. It does not work.
The best interfaces are a result of design decisions which are based on the designer creating interfaces for.
1) A known display resolution
2) A known display size
3) A known input method

Apple now address themselves to making the workflow and design process easier.... And not a technical solution which will try to make a one-size-fits-all work.

C.

I totally disagree! That's the current way of doing it -- designing inside of the box, if you will.

Just as 2D windows broke the bindings between display size and content size, a 3D perspective breaks the bindings between display size and content navigation and manipulation.

Have a look at this-- better yet download the free app and try it on your iPad and iPhone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEPvUfC7wh8

It gives you an idea of what can be done with a 3D perspective.

Apple has several patents in this area.

.
"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 #251 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by northernale1 View Post

Apple does make good products,,, But Jobs is a big wanker, his comments where childish and irrelevant,

When you're the champ, you're allowed. It's war.

Apple actually walks the talk. If SJ wants to talk down the flat-footed competition, all the more power to him.

He's exposing the also-rans for the numbnuts that that they are. It's about time.

SJ's throwing down the gauntlet by talking smack, but these amateurs are just way too slow on the uptake.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

So Apple's biggest success appears to be mind control. Somehow just watching an Apple commercial gives one an instant lobotomy?

The "mind-control" theory is the last refuge of the envious and perpetually out-of-touch.

Look at the bright side: at least these folks are entertaining.
post #252 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by northernale1 View Post

Apple does make good products,,, But Jobs is a big wanker, his comments where childish and irrelevant,

I hope he stirred up a hornets nest all the better for us consumers,

and anyone who doesnt think apple can fall,, have a good look at where GM is right now, they had the same attitude , we are on top, deserve to be on top, and will always be on top

and yes I agree Itunes is bloated and about the least user friendly media player out there

Again, his comments weren't made for consumers. It was made for investors and analysts who needed an explanation why apple wasn't participating with the same form factor as their competitors. The comments were appropriate
post #253 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I totally disagree! .

I am happy to agree to disagree!

I started out thinking that a one-size-fits-all solution was technically possible. This is what Nokia are currently pursuing with QT.

But I have ended up really intensely disliking automated solutions for rescaling content up or down. They end-up compromising the usability or aesthetics intended by the designer.

C.
post #254 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

The "mind-control" theory is the last refuge of the envious and perpetually out-of-touch.

It's one of the standard responses to the question "How come Apple are so successful"

1. It's all marketing and spin
2. All their customers are stupid / fashion led / mind-controlled
3. It's just a trick of some kind
4. If you charge that much, no wonder you are making so much money

It's what minds do when they refuse to accept the simpler solution.

C.
post #255 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

It's one of the standard responses to the question "How come Apple are so successful"

1. It's all marketing and spin
2. All their customers are stupid / fashion led / mind-controlled
3. It's just a trick of some kind
4. If you charge that much, no wonder you are making so much money

It's what minds do when they refuse to accept the simpler solution.

C.

You are correct, and the real "Genius" behind apple is that Steve Jobs (Even back in the start) recognized that there are people in this world that will pay a premium for a better looking product., even when it lacks some of the features they would like to have. "Oh, you wanted cup holders with you Lexus?"
post #256 of 345
RIM has enough pull with enterprise to sell quite a few of these, the direction of success will depend on how much developers can achieve with the development aspect. Who knows if a new Microsoft'ish platform is born, where flaws work most of the time.
post #257 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheITGuy View Post

You are correct, and the real "Genius" behind apple is that Steve Jobs (Even back in the start) recognized that there are people in this world that will pay a premium for a better User Experience, even when it lacks some of the features tech geeks think they should have.

Fixed.

Yes, part of the User Experience is design. Design is a *very* big deal. The competition should learn what it means.
post #258 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheITGuy View Post

You are correct, and the real "Genius" behind apple is that Steve Jobs (Even back in the start) recognized that there are people in this world that will pay a premium for a better looking product., even when it lacks some of the features they would like to have. "Oh, you wanted cup holders with you Lexus?"

I don't think it is all down to Jobs. But he is good at creating corporate cultures that focus on the outcomes. On the products.

Job's other company, Pixar also succeeded by focussing intensely on the products. Not the inputs.

C.
post #259 of 345
Hey Quadra 610 - - I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me or even arguing a point with me, but DON’T put your words in my mouth just to justify your opinion! And while I don't totaly disagree with you, there are a large number of people that buy products (Yes, even outside the tech market) solely because they look better than a product that offers more of the features they want. After all, you only need to look at guys with trophy wives to prove my point. They are expensive and can’t boil water without burning it, but they look great.
post #260 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

I'm not talking about market share, I'm talking about bragging rights. RIM doesn't have any so they should button up and focus their efforts on delivering something compelling to consumers.

Side note: Android is sold by at least 10 OEMs with at least 50 handsets in the market and they barely sell more than iPhone. That, in my books, is a big fat fail. All those companies expending all that effort to just barely sell more than one single competitor? Fail! Its not a market share fail, its a strategy fail.

So what strategy should they have? Do you really think it would be a wise decision for every phone maker to make their own mobile OS, and their own App store? How many developers will make Apps for 5,6,....10 different OSs? Fragmentation is a small price to pay to sell devices. For instance, Moto was thisclose to giving up making handsets, trying to copy what Apple did would've spelled certain doom for its mobile division. Using Android's OS has for now been a smart move on their part. For most of my Droid owning friends its their first smart phone while my friends with iPhones were previous iPhone owners. I personally own a Droid but not because I dislike Apple or the iPhone, but simply because I'm a VZW customer in NYC.

Now IMO SJ is correct, 7" is to small for a tablet. When I eventually get one it'll be for reading and the 9.7" form factor is almost identical to most magazines and good enough for newspapers.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #261 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I am happy to agree to disagree!

I started out thinking that a one-size-fits-all solution was technically possible. This is what Nokia are currently pursuing with QT.

But I have ended up really intensely disliking automated solutions for rescaling content end up or down. They end up compromising the usability or aesthetics intended by the designer.

C.

I agree with the latter.

But I think that auto-scaling can work if content-presence (e.g. another item the presentation), scale granularity and scale bounds could be set by the developer and manipulated by the user.

As a developer and content presenter, I would prefer to design an app where content navigation, say, a drill-down is designed from an idealistic point of view -- then adapted to a range of presentation sizes (bounds) based on display size and user zoom. For example the mail app.

Let's say that three columns is the ideal display content for this app: mailboxes; message summary; message detail.

On an iPhone it is programmed as a one-column-at-a-time drill-down:

On an iPad portrait it is a one column display (the selected message) and a pop-up with one-column-at-a-time display of the mailboxes and message summaries.

On an iPad landscape it is a one column display (the selected message) and a left column that switches between the mailboxes and message summaries..

On, say, a 15" screen all 3 columns would be present (the ideal).

But if the user zoomed in a certain amount the presentation would automatically change to either:
1) move the leftmost column off screen (where it could be panned to)
2) collapse the mailboxes column so that it will alternate with the message headers column (as in the iPad Landscape. above)

Thus, the number of columns and their interaction would be designed for the ideal, then adjusted by the OS Presentation Services - according to rules set by the developer and options chosen by the user.

For example the developer might set a rule that the message requires a minimum width of 60 characters of font-size 14 -- any combination of screen size and user zoom, less than that would limit the number of columns to 1... and so on.

Designing for an ideal, with developer rules, would allow the app to present well on any size display-- and still be useable and work as expected.

This, compared to rethinking and developing each app for each specific screen size.

Let the OS do some of the work.

.
"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 #262 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheITGuy View Post

Hey Quadra 610 - - I dont mind someone disagreeing with me or even arguing a point with me, but DONT put your words in my mouth just to justify your opinion! And while I don't totaly disagree with you, there are a large number of people that buy products (Yes, even outside the tech market) solely because they look better than a product that offers more of the features they want. After all, you only need to look at guys with trophy wives to prove my point. They are expensive and cant boil water without burning it, but they look great.

Being a former trophy husband... I have no idea what you are talking about

.
"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 #263 of 345
.

@TheITGuy

Where does IT typically fit in the current enterprise structure -- what level is the highest exec?

.
"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 #264 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddo View Post

the "killer apps" for iPad just would not work on a 7" machine.

Which killer apps are those? I was unaware of any exclusive killer apps for the iPad. Now I learn that not only are there killer apps, but none of them will work on a 7 inch screen.

Which apps are killer apps?
post #265 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

... but piots post was funny and poignant.

That was my intention. Thank you.

Anyways... we now have the US pricing. $600 via Verizon. So let's open the floodgates for half sized tablets at the same price as iPads.
post #266 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

RIM got flushed out by the Samsung Galaxy tab release and had to announce its 2011 tablet way early, even for them ...

that's speculation. as i said, look at RIM's history of announcements and their associated timings.
post #267 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

For instance, Moto was thisclose to giving up making handsets, trying to copy what Apple did would've spelled certain doom for its mobile division. Using Android's OS has for now been a smart move on their part.

To paraphrase Anssi Vanjoki ..
It's a bitterly cold day in Motorolaland and Motorola are basking in the warm afterglow of some really nice warm and steamy pants. But there could be some biting cold ahead when that cold wetness hits them.

I am convinced its going to be very hard for Android handset makers to maintain a profit level above any other Android handset maker. Like Windows hardware makers, they have no substantial way of distinguishing their products from any other manufacturers sharing the same software.

This is my theory: Agressive competition between Android handset makers will result in very low revenues for all of them.

I could be wrong. But a couple of years should prove it one way or another.

C.
post #268 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Apple's $1.2 B in 1997 was the result of having much more cash in the early 90's and dropping through the mid-90's.

in part through software sales which is exactly what i said in a previous post.
post #269 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

Somehow just watching an Apple commercial gives one an instant lobotomy?

Reading all the trolls on this site... apparently it does.
post #270 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by appl View Post

Which killer apps are those? I was unaware of any exclusive killer apps for the iPad. Now I learn that not only are there killer apps, but none of them will work on a 7 inch screen.

Which apps are killer apps?

I am not sure what is meant by Killer Apps - but I can tell you what will not work on a 7" screen.
Magazine apps - like Wired, are already a little cramped on the 10" screen. But still manage to feel like magazine pages.

Halving the screen size will destroy that, and require the user to scroll about, like an iPhone.

Comic Books - currently feel like comic books. Halving them in size destroys the illustion.

Business Documents - currently are close to full size paper. Won't be at half size.

Electronic Newspapers rely on simulating newspaper-like layouts.

and so on.

C.
post #271 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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).

.

I don't always agree with every viewpoint of yours, Dick, but I almost always enjoy your posts.

This one especially. Your summation of the iPad as the funnest computer you've ever used says it all. If that is your criteria, and given your family's usage patterns, it seem to be an important one, you've nailed the appeal of the device.
post #272 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm6032 View Post

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?

I think it is more like:

"Boss, I think we need to respond to the recent comments by Apple. Here's a script the PR people wrote for you."

Boss makes minor edits, passes it by his right-hand man for final approval, and recites it in front of the press.
post #273 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

That $150 million investment in Apple was probably going to be a lot cheaper than the lawsuit that would have followed instead.

Microsoft gave much more to Apple that the announced sum of $150 million http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...362B533B9.html

anyways, getting back on topic ... i'll give RIM the benefit of the doubt on their PlayBook; the same level of doubt i gave Apple years ago when they first announced the original iPhone in 2007. i still maintain it's still a bit premature to dismiss RIM's entry into the tablet arena. i adopted the 'wait and see' approach with the iPhone and i'll do the same with the PlayBook.
post #274 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.

@TheITGuy

Where does IT typically fit in the current enterprise structure -- what level is the highest exec?

.

In our curent environment, amidst all the VPs and Sr. VPs we have a CIO. When you venture outside of IT we go beyond the CEO all the way to the Board of directors.
post #275 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryn View Post

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?

He said: "Everybody else can suck it."

I think that was his point, and the rest was just an excuse for having it.
post #276 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbh View Post

and that's the main reason why average consumers buy an iPhone... they don't care about tech specs.. all they care about is the ease of useability of the phone...

No, the average consumer buys a phone that is NOT an iPhone. The Apple phone business is like number 7 worldwide. In the US, isn't it number 3?

The fact is that the average consumer does NOT buy an iPhone; a minority of consumers buy an iPhone. The average consumer buys a different phone.
post #277 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I also find that Steve's remark about the sandpaper is just rude and juvenile. It's also insulting in that it makes no sense to say a 7" iPad is too small for fingers when the iPhone is even smaller.
...
I have a lot of iPhone apps with more buttons in the menu bar and much smaller targets for my fingers than Pages or Numbers on the iPad and they work very well indeed. IMO Mr. Jobs is out and out lying about some of this stuff and it's really quite apparent this time that he is. Perhaps the reality distortion field is finally breaking down. I know it has for me.

+1 Insightful
post #278 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by appl View Post

No, the average consumer buys a phone that is NOT an iPhone. The Apple phone business is like number 7 worldwide. In the US, isn't it number 3?

The fact is that the average consumer does NOT buy an iPhone; a minority of consumers buy an iPhone. The average consumer buys a different phone.

Ranking has little to do with averages.

It could be argued, but I'd think it's fair to say the average smartphone consumer prefers the iphone
post #279 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post

Yes it's called a Mac.

Macs are very nice. That is why the sell, despite all the other issues.

And technophobes like them. Also old people and artists. Some niche uses, like video production, seem to work well on them.

But for folks who want a powerful machine for a good price, and want to have lots of new cool app choices, not so much.
post #280 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun View Post

Ranking has little to do with averages.

It could be argued, but I'd think it's fair to say the average smartphone consumer prefers the iphone

But, the average Smartphone user will usually swing to a non-apple phone because of cost and availability from the carrier of their choice.
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'