Apple iPad widely expected to lead tablet disruption of PCs in 2011 - Page 2

Dammit. I doubled down on forthrightness and lost my shirt.

I'm not going to try to guess any outcomes, if only because the market categories themselves are so much in flux. Breaking this rule right away, one outcome I will guess without too much fear of being wrong is that it won't play out like the PC market. It won't be arbitrarily reduced to one highly dominant player and few opportunities left over for anyone else. This market, however it ends up being defined, will be more diverse and hence more healthy than the PC market has been. This is another reason why I think the analogy made in the article is inaccurate.

I have little doubt that Apple will be a major player, not just in market share, but in defining what the market looks like. They can't entirely prevent the market from being flooded with cheap imitations, but Apple can use their influence on what people expect and their marketing power to make them look like cheap imitations. Not that some still won't choose them, but I think the serious players who'd like to be in for the long haul (HP and RIM at this point) will have to pay very close attention to Apple's product and at least come close in functionality and price, or come out on the short end.

True. That market exists. And the Mac has never sold as well as it sells today. Apple struggled from the very first year the Mac 128K was released. The Lisa did even worse, costing over three times as much.

Apple has said stated many times to investors (Wall Street() that the iPad has (priced aggressively) lower margins.

I have the new kindle and I agree the screen size is perfect for what it does but it ain't no iPad. I'd argue, no I'll stick my neck out, and say Apple won't release a 7 inch iPad.

Is "thought in the industry" just wizardspeak for "I want a smaller iPad?

Ah, thought so!

Oh crap! I pissed off The Defenders of Jobs--now I'm in for it!!

1) I didn't get in early enough (despite all my talk 10 years ago) nor did I buy enough to owe Jobs my allegiance for my retirement fund. I do thank him from the bottom of my heart for my emergency house fund...
2) Believe it or not, I'm not actually criticizing Jobs here. Sure, I'm pulling against his stated plans, but he has publicly misled his competitors (and supporters) many times before. Who is to say he isn't doing it now?
3) What fun would it be if we felt we couldn't think for ourselves just a little? Besides, its like talking about the weather--I might complain about aspects, but in the end, I will enjoy what comes and be happy

That was a very good story. I grow tired of all the iPad detractors ALWAYS coming back to Flash. I have ran into maybe ONE scenario, among hundreds, in which I would have needed Flash. It's a non-issue. Apple haters always hold on to one thing. I still go to blogs in which they talk about duct tape for the iPhone 4 because the have NOTHING ELSE on it. They are NOT very creative! :-)

I recently switched my Macs Safari browser User Agent to represent the iPad by default. I did this so sites would pull HTML5 video instead of Flash.

While this was the case as more sites than most realize will avoid Flash if using a non-desktop OS browser, there was an issue that was also telling about the future of web browsers, albeit one that forced me to eventually return to my original User Agent with an Extension that called HTML5 video over Flash for many sites.

This issue, is that many sites have an iPad app in the App Store. Unfortunately most, if not all, had the splash appear each time you reloaded the page which in itself was a deal breaker, but its interesting that not only is Flash non-issue for modern websites but that many also have added iOS specific apps as well.

Great idea. I am tired of being force-fed "required" plug-ins, just because those sites are too lazy to use web standards.

This Extension works for the majority of video youll likely come across. Of course, the ClickToFlash plug-in or extension are independisble for reducing resource usage and saving your battery.

http://www.verticalforest.com/youtube5-extension/ Here is Grubers take on removing Flash completely from Mac OS X.

http://daringfireball.net/2010/11/fl..._google_chrome
http://daringfireball.net/2010/11/ma..._mobile_safari

Interesting take on both devices, and as I've said many times... my iPad is fine for around the house or when sitting stationary for a period of time, but my Galaxy Tab is a far superior 'on the go' device in every way as its form-factor and overall ergonomics are superior to my larger/heavier iPad (swiping with two thumbs is masterfully efficient - IMO).

If there's one thing that frustrates me about some of these reviews, it's that those writing them often fail to learn much about the devices before labeling something as a deficiency.

Example: "After googling for some answers it became clear that you needed a third party app to take a screenshot."

NOT TRUE: Screen capture is an integral part of the device's OS, requiring only the simultaneous holding of the [POWER] and [BACK] buttons for 2 seconds to accomplish.

Personally, I find this kind of ignorance regarding a device being reviewed both disheartening and annoying.

Oh Well...

Solip was referring to sites that have gone to the effort of providing HTML5 video. It is just the mechanism for delivery that is conditional based on devices known to need the alternate content. Since the Flash based video can offer enhancements that HTML cannot (yet), such as integrated advertising, the programmers look for the plug-in and if it is there, they send Flash. If the user agent is an iDevice they know that there is no support for Flash. In order to completely sniff out the platform and browser instalation it takes a lot of coding so most of the time they keep it simple. One thing I find curious is that more developers don't test for Flash blockers and deliver alternate advertising.

I slept on that question and I arrived at the same thing that I said to DaHarder... why would you take two devices (phone plus Galaxy Tab) when you could just take the iPhone and leave the tab at home (the Tab can only be used as a phone if you use Skype). I couldn't see any advantage in also having the Tab with me.

The GT seemed too big (to me) to be any more convenient than the iPad. It won't fit into a pocket easily and might as well be left at home. If it is to be left at home then I would much rather have the screen real estate that my iPad offers.

Other than Flash I didn't see anything that the GT offered over the iPad.

Just my observations.

That’s why I returned my first iPad and why I still don’t have much use for my 2nd iPad (it was a gift). Between my iPhone and 13” MBP my computing window is just too small for the iPad.

Even though I’m using my iPad for some games (which is a new thing for me) and reading eBooks, I’m more than just a casual user so I’d rather have my MBP if I’m sitting. Those 7” tablets with 16:9 ratios look horrendous for reading. Heck, even the Kindle app for the iPad makes it a less than ideal experience compared to iBooks, even though the Kindle Store has a much better selection.

I suppose if you don’t have a smartphone the Galaxy Tab would seem pretty nice, but compared to the iPad it seems woefully limited and overpriced for what you get.

In a previous thread you uploaded a picture that you had composed where you claimed the iPad was "boring bland and blah". So now it is fine?

he thinks that it gives credibility to him as a balanced reviewer so he sets up the iPad as fine and then states the Galaxy Tab is far superior [] in every way. If it is, then this one tablet should outsell the iPad in a very short time.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, or at least stop selcteively ommitting portions of member posts to better fit your (often biased) views.

What I posted was: "my Galaxy Tab is a far superior 'on the go' device in every way as its form-factor and overall ergonomics are superior to my larger/heavier iPad"

I read Solipsism's reply and then your comment about his reply and came to the conclusion that adding 'on the go' from your original post wouldn't have changed his conclusion one iota.

I think you're just looking for a fight.

I omitted “on the go” for that very reason. It’s pointless filler. His implications being that the iPad is only useful as a stationary device is silly. For instance, which has a better battery life for reading, for WiFI, for video? If the iPad beats the Galaxy Tab in any single test his statement is blown to bits because running off the battery is something that I would think would be important for an “on the go” test.

I focused on his aggrandized "far superior […] in every way” comment as I don’t think there is a single thing I own that I could honestly say is "far superior […] in every way” to something else, whether it’s "on the go" or not. For example, I love my iPhone and it’s by far the best choice for my needs, but saying that it’s "far superior […] in every way” as a statement of fact would be asinine, at the very least, regardless of add some silly comment like “on the go.”

As you obviously don't even own a Samsung Galaxy Tab (or any other 7 inch tablet for that matter), you're clearly speaking out of complete ignorance as to the portability/mobile (yes, 'on the go') usability of this form factor.

Note: Regarding your claims of 'omitting' anything for 'just that reason'... Sure Whatever

I don't see it as much as giving up on market share. It's more so defining the market.

The iPad, as is, is far more useful than I expected when I bought it. Credit the keyboard for part of that. Credit the robustness of the apps due to the screen real estate.

A smaller iPad would lose both those things. While it would provide for people who want a smaller form factor, there are still so many people who don't really know what form is best for them because it's a new market.

People are used to laptops. They know whether they need a larger screen for a desktop replacement or a smaller screen for portability.

Countless consumers would assume that they'd prefer a smaller iPad. After a few weeks of using it, they would be satisfied but not surprised about their experience. It wouldnt integrate into their lives so much. I for one would still be dependent on my laptop.

The point is, it would allow people to cheapen their experience without ever knowing what they're missing out on. It would be good for stocks in the short run. But being that it's a brand new market, iPad wants to maintain its reputation rather than cater to every segment. From a stockholder perspective, I think that would pay off in the long run.

This tells me all I need to know about you .... as they say in Texas ..... "All hat, no cattle"

So I'm supposed to have a (Android, I guess) smartphone that I carry at all times, a somewhat larger (Android, I guess) "tablet" that does exactly the same things as the smart phone and requires an additional cell phone contract that I also carry around for "on the go", and an iPad sized device at home because the somewhat larger on the go tablet actually isn't that pleasant for extended use.

Yes, I think many consumers will opt for that scenario.

It's interesting that the iPad was "just a big iPod Touch" and therefore sharply limited in its appeal and capacities, but a literally (and only somewhat) bigger Android phone is perfect.

When Steve said a 7" would be unusable unless you sanded down your fingers, I understood that to mean - we will be introducing a smaller iPad next year for people with smaller fingers.

No one took him seriously when he said third party apps were not needed because web apps were sweet. Or when he said people don't want to watch video on an iPod.

FWIW, this is what they reported in their last 10-K statement:


Much as been read into it, but I'm not sure all of the inference is correct.

You have separate the marketing from the reality, and that takes a little thought on the part of the reader which is why these quotes get pushed around as if they were meant to be taken literally.

Let’s take Jobs’ comments on iPhone apps from 2007. He said they created a sweet solution.

For starters, that solution promoted the full WebKit engine in a phone, something that wasn’t common before the iPhone and one reason, IMO, why the iPhone was and is so popular in the first place. We know this true to some extent because sites were being rewritten specifically to accommodate the iPhone and WebKit has become the de facto browser engine for mobiles.

Secondly, the SDK was announced and demoed only a few months after the iPhone’s release. I don’t believe for a second that Apple never considered an SDK for iOS until after developers forced Apple’s hand, as some have speculated. A proper SDK takes time to build, just ask Google, Palm, Nokia, RiM and Microsoft.

Finally, just before the talk in January 2007 about how developers could make apps for the iPhone Jobs specifically stated that Maps was the best way to access Google Maps on the iPhone so the idea of dedicated apps that “blow away” a browser-based solution was obviously clear to Apple. If it wasn’t then YouTube, Stocks, Weather and every other native app on the iPhone that connects to the internet and could be rendered by an internet browser would have just been a shortcut to a Safari page or a dedicated page rendered in HTML/JS/CSS.

The idea that Apple is basically bone-headed and customer hating, but nevertheless ends up doing the right thing because they are "forced" by internet pundit outcry or competition to change course, is one of those Apple hatred fall back positions that will never die.

The iPhone actually sucks, you see, except for the stuff that they had to do after some fat sweaty geeks on the internet raised hell. Then, of course, Anybody-But-Apple shows them how to do it "right" by building on what Apple has already done and benefiting from Apple's trailblazing.

If Apple brings out a 7" iPad, it won't be because Apple looked at the market and designed something they would be willing to sell. It will be because all those other really smart tech companies that didn't seem to be able to build a tablet worth shit until Apple showed them how and Google gave them an OS were "innovating" so that Apple became obliged to "catch up."

It's a shameless business, Apple bashing.

I think others have addressed size. But Aspect Ratio???
Who is saying that? People that think tablets are good only for viewing movies? I can't think of one application on the iPad, other than viewing a movie, where the aspect ratio should be any different. So what, so you get a black bar either side of the movie.

Sacrifice the usability of a tablet for one application? Sounds like what some other manufacturer would do when designing one of their lame tablets.

1024x768: normal VGA for presentation. Keynote? I use it all the time. Books? PDFs? Emails? Sound familiar? Photos and slideshows? Photos are not naturally widescreen format. Typing up pages of notes? I don't want to carry around something the size and shape of an envelope (third letter size): I want something that approximates a notebook that I would write in.

Turn the iPad to landscape position for a nice browsing experience. But, if it was wide screen ratio, you would barely get more than the browser bar and a quarter of a page. You'd be scrolling all the time just to finish a paragraph.

I guess those that are pushing tablets with different aspect ratios are trying to make their point of differentiation a "feature". Good luck with that. Apple has been testing this for years. But since thousands of developers have created thousands of iPad apps that utilize the full screen for all kinds of productive purposes, then I guess the industry has spoken. And since millions have happily bought iPads, I guess you are in a very small and blinkered minority.

It's because apple proved there is a market for a big iPod touch.

When?

I'm with you. I think it may happen. But I don't think it'd be next year. It's a new market and I think apple would prefer to not dilute their product until the market is better established.

To draw a comparison, the stripped down shuffle was introduced three years after the first iPod.

The pace of competition and technology are much more accelerated today which will likely compress the time frame IMO.

August 14 I think?

Really though, Addabox is right. Before the iPad came out, detractors said there was no interest in a big iPod touch. Now that the interest is well established, the company that created the interest is said to be doing it wrong.

Just looking to accent his point.

At this point with the iTunes ecosystem so entrenched, Apple could put a 30 pin dock connector on a bag of pretzels and there would be queue around the block.

I like that point.

So you know, I like many of the points you make. So I'm not looking to disagree with you as much as I am to hear more.

Would you say that the competition is moving pretty slowly compared to the general rate of technology these days? The ipad has outpaced the competition to the point that:
*the nearest competitor, android, still doesn't have an os that they feel is right for a tablet device, even as hardware manufacturers are trying to push into the market
*Other competitors like rim and hp/palm also don't even have an os ready for a tablet device.
*the iPad seems to be succeedIng to the point where they can manage better pricing through more volume. Entry devices are looking to compete by going smaller.

I don't know jack. I'm just making this stuff up as I go.

Aren't we all

Well obviously I just did! Aspect ratio is very important if one of your primary use cases is the delivery of video and movies. Obviously there is no perfect aspect ratio, but the point is wider would have been smarter on the iPad.

Actually a wider aspect ratio is good for a number of things including viewing of pics, reading a column of text, certain types of games, apps that leverage a wide screen (IDEs) and others. There is really very little to defend with respect to the 4:3 ratio.

Don't be dense you would actually be increasing usability especially as the screen becomes smaller. For example grab an iPhone and type in text into this very dialog box. You get constant scrolling in horizontal orientation. The easiest way to improve iPhone, without blowing it up size wise is to give it a wider screen.

The same physical realities are at work when you are dealing with sub seven inch displays. You need one orientation that is much wider than the other to realize effective UI elements like keyboards.

Yep and everyone of those text delivery formats works better on a taller screen. Especially on a small device. Think about newspapers and their centuries of experience with columns of text. Papers are arrainged the way they are because it enhances readability as would a wide screen display offer up text in vertical mode. The science here is very clear. Just because Apple effectively markets it's choice of aspect ratios doesn't mean that that ratio is a good solution from the human factors perspective.

Again I have to question if you really know what you are talking about. Have you looked at a 35mm negative? The closest format to paper size is or was the 6x7 cm format, other formats are far from 4:3 and some where square. Pics are often printed on common paper sizes but even those vary a bit in aspect ratios
Exactly! How would you type up notes on a sub seven in device without it being wide screen? The keyboard would still be a compromise but would be significantly wider, in horizontal mode, than a keyboard on a 4:3 ratio device.

Like a steno pad? If you want something bigger then you have more options, but as devices get smaller usability goes out the window with 4:3 aspect ratios. Besides ask yourself this; in a notebook what is the aspect ratio of the working surface?

Or turn it vertically and user reader mode to read the text like you would in a newspaper. I'm not sure why you are struggling so much here, it is pretty simple really.

Nope not at all, what we are looking at is the human factors issues that have been with us for thousands of years now when it comes to reading text. Plus the smarter media delivery that comes with a wide screen.

You mis a couple of important points. First there are billions of people on the planet. Second there are millions of those that buy whatever Apple feeds them. Some even bought AppleTVs. Beyound that we really don't know what Apple tested or what they intend to deliver on other devices. Apple could deliver a wide screen device and simply call it a video iPod.

As for developers and apps, they have been fitting apps to the available tech since the start of the computer age. In a very literal sense you work with what you have be that a TTY, an 80x20 text display or an OpenGL driven display. In this case developers see a platform that they can make lots of money on so they optimize for the device, which should surprise no one.