Originally Posted by REC
Hmm... no they don't. =)
Any company that doesn't ends up at risk of loosing customers. Besides Apple has a long history of listening to customers. They directly addressed a suggestion I made with regards to the Mini.
This strikes me as very un-Apple. But don't take my word for it, lets see how the iPad2 looks when they introduce it. I guarantee that no iPad will ever have HDMI, SD card or USB.
HDMI would be silly but not a SD port. USB is an entirely different matter and would be used extensively if Apple provided a way to load drivers.
There's no reason right now to believe any of the coming hardware will be able to knock the iPad from its throne. And as I said before with that coming hardware, it's coming too late if ever.
Being late to the party doesn't imply that you can't enjoy yourself. There will be successful tablets beyond iPad. It might take awhile but the markets simply don't like unitary line ups.
Half of them probably won't even ship. The ones that do will compete on features and price, and like the iPod has proven, competing with Apple on features and price is a losing bargain.
Your logic escapes me here. Features are always a point of competition.
Frankly I'd rule out any Android tablet as a viable competitor to iPad. Android is a mess.
But assuming they even get past the Honeycomb issue, there are a number of problems here: many are 7", which people won't want.
Now we see you have been brain washed by Stevo. 7" tablets will be very hot once a suitable OS is running on them. Amazon has shown with Kindle that size does matter. For many uses a few inches makes a big difference.
Some are by companies that can't deliver, no reason to think they'll be able to get the hardware and glass together in any kind of quantity. Many more haven't declared prices, and losing on price vs Apple is not sustainable. Some will ship tablets with android 2, which may as well be a death sentence. And win7 tablets truly are DOA.
This thing with price is BS. IPad is a rather high priced device for what it is. As to Win anything at least here we agree DOA.
The list is long, but the number of actual tablet competitors can be counted on one hand.
Well that is you but not the vast majority of consumers. All they see is that apps run fast and nimbly, and they do.
You saying so doesn't make it so. All you need to do is pick up an iPad and use it for something non trivial. If you still think it is fast then you have a very odd perception if time.
So nerds will have some problems with the iPad2 if it doesn't get an upgraded CPU, but it won't impact sales one bit.
Sure it will. For one no incentive for current users to upgrade. For another those waiting for a more viable machine will just hold off longer. Finally it will put a big crimp in software development limiting the growth in non trivial software.
Your assertion that 'many others' agree that iPad needs better performance just doesn't hold true. I'm sure some minority of geeks and some developers believe this to be true, but for the vast majority of users... no. It runs Angry Birds just great from what I've seen. =)
Angry Birds, come on that game doesn't even stress my 3G. In any event if you put an iPad along side this mythical iPad 2, with a greatly enhanced SoC, it will be very obvious just how slow the current model is.
However on this point I will grant that if they did upgrade the CPU it would be a welcome surprise. I don't expect it this soon, but if they do it great. I already have an iPad and I'm probably getting an iPad2, and I'm more likely to do it if they upgrade the internals.
in a way you support my position here. Thanks.
I don't think this will be a surprise though as they have had just enough time to build the SoC. Further they are well aware of the competition and the pre baked Cortex A9 chips on the market. In the end I don't think Apple has much of a choice.
Not having it be standalone is clearly working for them! Like I noted before, alot of people have cheap PCs. These people can't afford Macbooks, but they can afford iPads. The iPad plugs into their PC and now they have an Apple branded 'laptop' they can afford. This relationship is working, no need to change it anytime soon.
No doubt it is working. However I have a problem with your suggestion that you wouldn't be able to plug in a standalone device for syncing or whatever. A standalone device would not give up features.
Competitors that make their tablets completely standalone from the PC don't really help themselves in terms of sales, in fact it might even hurt them just a bit right now. Again this might be a better proposition for nerds but not so good for average people who already use iTunes.
I don't buy that and infact I'm not sure what your basis is for the claim. A completely standalone tablet would be all that many need. It isn't the nerd that needs standalone devices but rather the casual user.
I'll grant you that there are a number of people who want Macbooks who can't afford them, or who have iPods or use iTunes with a somewhat favorable view of Apple. This is to Apple's credit and it's taken a long time for them to build up (rebuild?) that reputation.
I was one of the original Mac Plus owners and absolutely loved that little machine. When Apple went through that huge decline I switched over to Linux and ran that for years. I watched the development of Mac OS/X very carefully and jumped back on board in 2008. So yeah I have to say Steve has done an excellent job of rebuilding the company. No OS is perfect but Mac OS/X is simply the best offering going for my needs.
I still wish that Apple was mire agressive price wise but the they come out with the MB AIRs. As long as Apple continues to be aggressive pricing new hardware I'm likely to stay with the platform. It is good to see Apple delivering quality products again.
I think the iPad further solidifies this though. It does it in a way that the Mac, the iPod and iTunes haven't been able to. The iPad is a PC replacement, whether people realize it or not. Many people will be getting this instead of some other kind of PC, probably a PC notebook or tablet but maybe even desktop hardware.
This brings us back to the standalone discussion. You are right iPad 2 could be everything many people need. The platform does need a few tweaks though to accel as ones onky computing device.
If it was just a question of getting cheap Apple branded computer hardware, then why didn't the mac mini take off? Why isn't Apple selling 16 million mac minis per quarter? It costs about the same.
Last I knew the Mini was a success. It is not however an XMac. In any event Apples sales have been very strong for the Mac line up so I'm not sure what you point is.
By the way my mention of the XMac highlights my belief that Apple is to big now, their market share too, to not have a more diverse product lineup with respect to Macs.
It's no more or less upgradeable than an iPad (slightly more upgradeable maybe). By most measurable standards it has superior hardware and software, it has lots of ports! Why doesn't that help it? It runs real desktop software, OSX! It has a far more powerful CPU, dual core even!
First why does it matter for this discussion.
Further for many a Mini is actually to little for a desk top machine. In the end you are trying to compare entirely different devices.
I have to conclude that many of these hardware features don't matter when it comes to actual sales. What I have to conclude is that people want mobile computing, and they want it in form factors that feel right, run well and reliably. Ports and processors don't matter, as long as the perception is that it does what you want and it's fast. Even the OS doesn't really matter, as long as it works, is trusted and understood. Most people probably make these determinations when they're standing around using one for the first time in an Apple store or Best Buy.
Nope I think you are just confusing yourself. For example using your reasoning I could say iPad is a failure because it doesn't sell as many units as the iPhone. Of course a reasonable person would say: well yeah the devices serve two entirely different markets. Likewise iPad is defining a new market one that isn't directly related to desktop PC users. On top of all of this Apples Mac sales have significantly outstripped the marjet in general. So really you have no point here.
Maybe the iPod touch got them there better than any Mac ever made. Apple has sold alot of iPod touches lately and the iPad is basically a bigger one of those. iPod touches sell really well and are basically very small mobile computers. Average consumers, who aren't into computers but need to do basic things like email and web probably view the iPod touch as a viable PC alternative. I know I have some nominally computer literate relatives who look at it this way.
Touch, iPhone and the iPad are all computers. Yes very tiny but none the less computers. I don't take this for granted though as even my 3G vastly out strips that old Mac Plus in capability.
So in this regard I don't disagree for many these devices do all that is required. I expect iPad to significantly improve upon that ability.
So maybe you're right, maybe people view Apple as a viable PC platform because of the iPod. If that were true it would make sense for Apple to create a more serious computing platform, the iPad tablet PC, based off the iPod/iPhone rather than the Mac. Which is what they've done, so good for them. =)
Im not sure you are interpeting the statements right. iPod certainly gave Apple the ability to make the Mac right. In effect it got them through the tough time where OS/X was coming online. I do question if Apple would have been around with out iPods.
Interesting your calling the iPad a more serious computing platform as I look at it as the ultimate casual platform. Even if used professionally I dint see it as a replacement for traditional computers. Rather it is an alternative approach. I see little benefit to absolute statements here as being a computer it can serve the needs of any user that cares to use the platform.