or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › JP Morgan: Kindle Fire is 'noise,' won't compete with Apple's iPad 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JP Morgan: Kindle Fire is 'noise,' won't compete with Apple's iPad 2 - Page 4

post #121 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

These so called "analyst" should all be fired.

They dont know a thing about marketing, consumer behavior and purchasing patterns.

..and you don't have the slightest clue about business manufacturing or economics... but I'll give ya the point anyway re: ANALysts.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #122 of 157
Who the hell thinks they shouldn't pay taxes across state lines knows nothing about the Interstate Trade and Commerce Clause in the US Constitution.
post #123 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I don't see anybody here who is afraid of the Amazon mini tablet. And why would they be? This is an Apple site and many people here already own the far superior iPad. Why would a much lesser tablet that does much less impress anybody here? Is anybody supposed to be enchanted by the cheap price? This is not a welfare office, again, it's an Apple site where many people own plenty of Apple gear.

If anybody should be worried about the Kindle Fire, it's other Android tablet makers who are also competing in the low-end market for cheap tablets.

+1. The price point for a 7" device has now been set... even if the other manufacturers "pimp" the device with everything including the kitchen sink... um... Flash sink.

How ironic would it be, if :

a) Amazon's tablet is proof in the court case against Samsung, that a tablet CAN run Android and NOT copy Apple;

b) if future devices from any manufacturer are graded on whether they will have full access to the Amazon Store and premium content... instead of Google's offerings.

I think it will be interesting to see how Google deals with this "fork" of Android... and what ideas it gives other manufacturers to "bake their own". Also considering that Microsoft is extracting licensing fees from HTC, Samsung and a few other manufacturers, at what point do these manufacturers start to cozy up to MS, and start offering Bing, etc. in able to get preferential treatment when Win8 is ready to go.

I'm still betting that Google will eventually pull the plug on active development of Android... or at the very least, stop releasing their code to play and develop around.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #124 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

I'm still betting that Google will eventually pull the plug on active development of Android... or at the very least, stop releasing their code to play and develop around.

That's a funny one. But yes, I agree. They will stop active development of Android eventually..around year 2080.
post #125 of 157
deleted
post #126 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The Kindle Fire's 7-inch screen, coupled with the absence of a camera, GPS and microphone, were listed as shortcomings when compared to similar devices such as the iPad. And because the device also lacks 3G connectivity, Moskowitz believes it could be a hybrid device leading the way for a more full-featured device.

7 inch screen I'll agree with as a big reason not to get one. As for camera, GPS and microphone, I don't think anyone will care that it hasn't got them.

Ultimately I think it will come down to the adverts. The Kindle has good adverts which is a posative, but it really depends if they can match the iPad adverts which people have not gone a week without seeing for well over a year now. So far no other tablet has had any decents ads and as a result nobody thinks of it as a product that they "want"

If the ads work then I think people will be looking at the iPad and Fire and basing the judgement on do I want the bigger screen and if I do, do I want to pay that much more for it.
post #127 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Does the Fire support connection ti an Android hotspot?

Unless an "Android hotspot" is somehow different from any other WIFI connection, then the answer is yes.

Do you think that Android phones transmit some kind of aberrant WIFI signal?
post #128 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

"Everyone Else" and all the pundits gushing over the Fire really should wait until they have the real thing in hand to test and review in detail. a demo at a press conference is never the complete story - haven't they learned that hard lesson yet, after so many other hypes at the announcement phase have turned to flops in real life? just how good a user experience the Fire is in all the ways that matter, and how well the hardware performs in real life, remain to be seen. or should Everyone Else always just swallow the hype they are spoon fed at these press events?

one thing that is really disappointing about all that gushing is how blind Everyone Else is to the plain fact there already is a low-priced "iPad Mini" tablet and has been for several years - it's the iPod touch of course. forget what Apple named it, that's just marketing. for just $229, $30 more than a Fire, Everyone Else can get right now everything the Fire has to offer and more. in a beautiful package, i might add, not the Fire's clunky modified Playbook chassis.

the only real advantage of the Fire vs. the touch is of course the Fire's 7" screen is twice the touch's 3.5" size, with 4X the screen area. that makes the Fire easier to use for most, altho too big for most pockets. both are running smartphone apps, the Fire just scales them up - not great.

i'd agree if Everyone Else suggested Apple should come out with a larger model of the iPod touch, like 5.5," to address the same "convenience tablet" market. with about 2X the screen area of a 3.5" model this size has been used by Sony for its PGP's, and it works really good for users (but Sony has other problems). it's more pocket-friendly too.

simply enlarging the size of the iPod touch would not add that much to its manufacturing cost, as all the stuff inside would be the same except a larger battery. Apple could sell one for $299.

so if Everyone Else had a lovely $299 slim and light 5.5" Apple iPod touch on a store table next to the dowdy $199 thick and heavy 7" Amazon Fire, which would they buy?

one thing Everyone Else might take in to account making that choice is that the touch could use its Amazon app to scan bar codes in that store and comparison shop at Amazon for better prices on the web. but having no camera, Amazon's own Fire could not (and that's a really dumb V.1 mistake).

I'm thinking along the same lines, namely that for Apple the best response to this sort of challenge is to make a larger iPod Touch. The size of the screen is the one aspect of my Touch that I don't find to my liking. Not sure if the first step would be to move past a five-inch form factor but I definitely think that 3.5 inches is not the sweet spot for such a device. I think something more in the 4.7-inch range might be that spot, namely the point at which the device remains pocketable for most yet offers enough screen real estate for a lot of what it's used for.

I really don't see what the downside would be to offering a 4.7-inch Touch. Such a device would certainly be a viable response to the Fire, trading off some screen real estate for functionality at roughly the same price point. While going from 3.5" to 4.7" doesn't sound like much, it is a significantly larger screen percentage wise but in terms of the actual dimensions, the device would remain easily pocket-friendly. More pocket-friendly, certainly, than the 7" Fire and yet not that much less enjoyable to use.

It is true that such a Touch device might impact iPad sales somewhat but a lot of those sales would be lost to devices like the Fire just the same so this would still work as a net gain for Apple.

It's hard for me to imagine that Apple hasn't considered this option and certainly if it hasn't considered it seriously to this point, with devices like the Fire emerging, now would be a good time to take it seriously. Even if the Touch receives a minimal upgrade next week, there is no reason why such a revision to the Touch would have to wait until next Fall to come to market. As soon as the revised Touch was available, Apple could continue selling the existing Touch at lower prices and bring this new model out, slotting it in at the Touch's current price point.

This seems to me a logical way for Apple to go but I have to say that as a long-time shareholder, whatever Apple decides to do, I'm sure they have it all figured out. The company has been on an incredible run since I first bought shares back in 2003.

Still, I have this gut feeling that the time has come to rethink the Touch.
post #129 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmcd View Post

The whole Android world seems confusing.

Stick with Apple. They aim like an arrow towards customers like you, and there are millions of them. Nothing will confuse you if you stick with Apple products.
post #130 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

7 inch screen I'll agree with as a big reason not to get one. As for camera, GPS and microphone, I don't think anyone will care that it hasn't got them.

Ultimately I think it will come down to the adverts. The Kindle has good adverts which is a posative, but it really depends if they can match the iPad adverts which people have not gone a week without seeing for well over a year now. So far no other tablet has had any decents ads and as a result nobody thinks of it as a product that they "want"

If the ads work then I think people will be looking at the iPad and Fire and basing the judgement on do I want the bigger screen and if I do, do I want to pay that much more for it.

I thought that a seven-inch screen would make a lot of sense but then I tried the Playbook and the iPad, back-to-back in-store and it's no contest. That extra screen real estate matters.

I think for the most part Apple has it right in that the focus should be either on a screen in the 10-inch range ala the iPad or something portable like the Touch. The 7" size is far less convenient than the smart-phone grade of device and far less enjoyable to browse on than the iPad size.

The one change I would make, though, is to make the Touch range a little larger. Keep the portability but dial down the compromise of using a much smaller screen.

Completely disagree, by the way, that the iPad is mainly successful because Apple's ads are better. The iPad is just that much better than the other tablets and the price is roughly the same. Why would anyone buy one of those other inferior products. It would be like having a BMW 3-series and the Chevy Malibu offered at the same price and a significant number passing up the BMW. Not gonna happen.

Initially there will be a lot of interest in the Fire but once customers start using the product day-to-day, if the experience is inferior to living with an iPad, word will get out and all the slick advertising in the world will not save the Fire. Apple does user experience far better than any other company. It's what has turned it into this century's most impressive success story.
post #131 of 157
According to technology reports and reviewers, FLASH content runs fine on the device. In fact it runs fine on just about all of them. With newer hardware models that are more capable, the argument that FLASH is just bad is pretty much gone. In fact on NPR many reporters complained about the frustration of owning an Apple iOS product and unable to view any FLASH content. Right on national news. Once again, Apple will be left behind. \
post #132 of 157
deleted
post #133 of 157
Note to JP Morgan: While not a direct competitor to the device known as the iPad 2, the Kindle Fire will affect sales of the iPad. It will not change my purchase plans for an iPad for myself, but it already has changed my purchase plans for the kids.

At the $199 price point I can afford to buy a device to entertain the kids and not have to care that it will probably be destroyed in short-order. I won't be buying into Amazon's $80/year service, but I will be looking to get the device itself. Too bad for Amazon they chose to price it at what will be a loss.

post #134 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

the argument that FLASH is just bad is pretty much gone.

Other than all the actual arguments that prove it's pretty darn terrible and the wrong way to go in the future of web content.

Quote:
Once again, Apple will be left behind. \

In other news, millions of iPads and iPhones are sold every quarter, Apple dominates the market, and no one gives a frick about Flash not being there.
post #135 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


In other news, millions of iPads and iPhones are sold every quarter, Apple dominates the market, and no one gives a frick about Flash not being there.

We must remember the "many" reporters at NPR...
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #136 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

7 inch screen I'll agree with as a big reason not to get one. As for camera, GPS and microphone, I don't think anyone will care that it hasn't got them.

The first iPad didn't need a camera or microphone to sell spectacularly well, so that doesn't seem like an argument that it's necessary. To get an iPad with GPS, you need the cellular data models, so the "no GPS" argument really compares a $630 and up cellular data iPad to get the good AGPS performance, against a $200 device that lacks GPS.
post #137 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Note to JP Morgan: While not a direct competitor to the device known as the iPad 2, the Kindle Fire will affect sales of the iPad. It will not change my purchase plans for an iPad for myself, but it already has changed my purchase plans for the kids.

At the $199 price point I can afford to buy a device to entertain the kids and not have to care that it will probably be destroyed in short-order. I won't be buying into Amazon's $80/year service, but I will be looking to get the device itself. Too bad for Amazon they chose to price it at what will be a loss.


Isn't the Touch an option, then?

If not, then why.
post #138 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

I meant kicking Apple's butt WRT market share. Android outsells iOS at a greater than 2 to 1 ratio.

"iOS powered devices generate more revenue than all of Microsofts products put together" -asymco market comparison

iOS alone has more value than the entire MS company in revenue. How is Android at turning a profit? How are those Android phone sellers doing there? That working out good for 'em? Making it up on volume are they?

I suspect Apple is crying all the way to bank...
OSX, because making UNIX user friendly is easier than debugging windows.
Reply
OSX, because making UNIX user friendly is easier than debugging windows.
Reply
post #139 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

Completely disagree, by the way, that the iPad is mainly successful because Apple's ads are better. The iPad is just that much better than the other tablets and the price is roughly the same. Why would anyone buy one of those other inferior products. It would be like having a BMW 3-series and the Chevy Malibu offered at the same price and a significant number passing up the BMW. Not gonna happen.

To reach the success of anyone buying the product you need decent ads. People arn't going out thinking they need a tablet and choosing the iPad. There watching ads for iPads every week and then feeling like they want one. The same way millions of people bought iPod's during constant advertising that went on for years, they wern't replacing another portable music player, the ads just make them want one.

So far every other tablet has had a half arsed ad campaign that might be enough if people we're going to buy a tablet and comparing them but there not. People don't even know what a tablet is, all they know is iPad.
post #140 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

To reach the success of anyone buying the product you need decent ads. People arn't going out thinking they need a tablet and choosing the iPad.

Apple does not need to advertise much. All the secrecy and hype in the news is the best free advertising. You cant buy advertising like that. Just you watch come Oct 4th.. you wont be able to escape the media blitz.. the same goes for the next iPad.
Even grandma will hear about it in the retirement home. "That Apple, I hear they have a new and improved product that everyone is fighting over to get'.

there are so many iPhone and iPad in the market already, you see them everywhere and people LOVE apple product once they buy them. Word of mouth is also very powerful.

If the Fire is "loved" by its owners in the same way then it will succeed. The fact that we no one has actually been allowed to handle a Fire prevents us from figuring this out. Kindle eInk readers are certainly loved by their owners. Amazon has a great eBook store.. much better then Apple's (more selection and better prices in my experience).

However, extending Amazon's book reach to other content is questionable. If I was looking for on-line Music, Movies and Apps I would not be picking Amazon, personally. There are better options. As a eBook reader, the Fire is not as good as the Kindle eInks. It will be interesting to see if people are willing to trade optimal eInk reader capability in-conjunction with a rich eBook store for access to online Music, Movies and Application stores which are not market leading. If the Fire allows you to access you iTunes purchases and stores, NetFlix and the general open Android marketplace then it would stand a better chance of acceptance. Not sure Amazon will ever let that happen.

Heck they even control what you see on web sites via the Silk architecture. Oh I am sorry, you are saying you can't read the New York Times web site very well? Oh I am sorry.. have you considered buying a subscription to NYT via our Newspaper App?
I dont rule that out. You dont have access to the web from your browser... all you access is the Amazon servers. Think about it. They have this thing so locked down. All content comes from them. Amazon's books, music, video, and even the web.

Its the same game companies like Comcast/NBC-Universal are playing. The next step is for Amazon to merge with Comcast/NBC/Universal in order to realize the dream of Buy-N-Large Corporation (reference to Wall-E). "No need to adjust your TV set, we now control all you hear, see and buy"
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #141 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

In fact on NPR many reporters complained about the frustration of owning an Apple iOS product and unable to view any FLASH content. Right on national news. Once again, Apple will be left behind. \

No, they will lead the way towards the future. HTML 5.

Do you still use floppy disks?
post #142 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Apple does not need to advertise much.

Steve disagrees:

Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/...margins-ahead/




Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".
post #143 of 157
testing my new signature.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #144 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Steve disagrees:

Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/...margins-ahead/




Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".

noted.. thanks.. probably also important to point out the 2nd sentence in the article you referenced. Dont you think?:

"Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years. Even so, the report notes that Apple's rapidly-growing revenues allowed the company to reduce its percentage of revenues spent on advertising from 1.37% to about 1.06%. "

1%? seriously?? they get charged 4 times more money by Visa/Mastercard for the purchasing transactions fees than they spend on advertising. 1% is chump change.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #145 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Steve disagrees:

Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/...margins-ahead/

Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".

Yikes! Way to miss the point.
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 #146 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Yikes! Why to miss the point.

Curbs you, Lion Otto-connect!
post #147 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

So then why are Android phones outselling iOS phones at a greater than 2 to 1 margin? Are they all selling to poor people?

Here we go again... Troll, rinse, repeat.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #148 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Troll, rinse, repeat.

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 #149 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

noted.. thanks.. probably also important to point out the 2nd sentence in the article you referenced. Dont you think?:

"Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years. Even so, the report notes that Apple's rapidly-growing revenues allowed the company to reduce its percentage of revenues spent on advertising from 1.37% to about 1.06%. "

1%? seriously?? they get charged 4 times more money by Visa/Mastercard for the purchasing transactions fees than they spend on advertising. 1% is chump change.

Keep in mind that you're not comparing similar kinds of expenses. How does it compare to other companies? IBM's ad budget is roughly $500M. Microsoft is roughly at $1B. So maybe they're in the ballpark. Given how often Apple ads are played, I think they're doing fine. I'd hate to see an overdose of Apple ads just because some guideline suggests spending more when what they're doing clearly is doing the job pretty darn well. I don't want them to join the ranks of companies that air an ad on every commercial break, at that point, the return on investment goes down.
post #150 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

So then why are Android phones outselling iOS phones at a greater than 2 to 1 margin? Are they all selling to poor people?

Software: Android OS is outselling iOS. However this is only on phones. What about tablets? Factor those and it would be a close race indeed.

Hardware: The Apple iPhone is outselling HTC/Samsung/Sony Erricson/Nokia et al. It is the worlds most popular phone, just like the iPad is the worlds most popular tablet. (You open up the Argos catalogue and the heading is "iPads and Tablets" ).

As for the "poor people" comment, thats going about it the wrong way - its more like they are selling to Tight Fisted people and those who don't care about what phone they have, not just those on a low income. QED: I bought a bedside table for £14.99 last week out of the catalogue, its of lower quality than the IKEA bedside I was looking at and not as pretty. I could've easily afforded the IKEA one, but I went for the £14.99 table because it was cheap and it was just... there. I don't really care as long as it was black to match the other furniture in my room and provided a place to put my glasses at night when I go to bed.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #151 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytdave View Post

Note to JP Morgan: While not a direct competitor to the device known as the iPad 2, the Kindle Fire will affect sales of the iPad. It will not change my purchase plans for an iPad for myself, but it already has changed my purchase plans for the kids.

At the $199 price point I can afford to buy a device to entertain the kids and not have to care that it will probably be destroyed in short-order. I won't be buying into Amazon's $80/year service, but I will be looking to get the device itself. Too bad for Amazon they chose to price it at what will be a loss.

Which is exactly the reason I ordered a TouchPad. At $99, it's a great birthday present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Steve disagrees:

Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/...margins-ahead/

Somehow, however, I think that responses will be logged that a 38% increase, amounting to nearly 3/4 of a Billion Dollars is the same as "not advertise much".

Given that sales increased significantly more than 38%, Apple's percentage of sales spent on advertising is actually decreasing. And on a percentage basis, it's less than most of their competition. So I wouldn't say that they 'don't advertise much', but their strategy is not all about advertising the heck out of an inferior product - which is what some of the competition does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

noted.. thanks.. probably also important to point out the 2nd sentence in the article you referenced. Dont you think?:

"Apple's advertising budget for fiscal 2010 was $691 million, up 38% from last year's $501 million and a much larger increase than in previous years. Even so, the report notes that Apple's rapidly-growing revenues allowed the company to reduce its percentage of revenues spent on advertising from 1.37% to about 1.06%. "

Yep. Leave it to ConradJoe to completely misrepresent the point of the article that he's quoting.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #152 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Don't for get all those horrible people who just simply hate anything Apple. And all of the good kind people that the greedy salesmen talk into buying one because it is "just like an iPad".

It worked in the smartphone biz, so why not the tablet biz?

Poor.
Bad.
Gullible.

Pick one or more to explain why Android is kicking Apples butt in the phone market, and then extend that to the tablet market. Maybe Apple should have stuck with selling to elite people instead of Grandma.

You're comparing Iphones to an OS used by bucketfuls of phone manufacturers yet Apple is the only one who can't keep up with the demand and still makes more profit than all of the other Android phone makers COMBINED.
post #153 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

According to technology reports and reviewers, FLASH content runs fine on the device. In fact it runs fine on just about all of them. With newer hardware models that are more capable, the argument that FLASH is just bad is pretty much gone. In fact on NPR many reporters complained about the frustration of owning an Apple iOS product and unable to view any FLASH content. Right on national news. Once again, Apple will be left behind. \

1) No, it means that there are still plenty of people locked into Flash usage, but that doesn't change the fact that Flash is what is being left behind

2) If you need or want Flash just use something that plays well with it. Complaining about Flash on an iPad is like complaining about streaming HD video off a Windows phone via USB to a TV. Don't use it for the wrong job. Why be annoyed that a banana isn't crispy?

That Flash is all over the place doesn't mean Apple made the wrong move not supporting it. Until it gets completely overhauled and stops being the POS ancient format with hundreds of bandaids of code that require security patches regularly, it won't survive to the next generation of computing, whether billions use it or not.

It's very amusing that a single sound bite said once on a radio show could cause someone to jump up and rejoice to the downfall of IOS, despite the many in the field who do not concur.
post #154 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

FLASH

The correct name is Flash. All-caps for emphasis is lame.

Quote:
ANALysts

You guys think you're being clever, I think you're just being tedious and monotonous for doing that.
post #155 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig View Post

It's 40% of the iPad's price, but it's also only 40% of the size, and has about 40% of the features. Together, that may be enough to satisfy some. It also my wet their thirst for the real thing.

It's also probably 40% of the weight, which is something the 7" naysayers always leave out. The iPad is pretty heavy for its form, especially for holding freely. A tablet of any size that give a good browsing and reading experience that is notably lighter will have a niche, other shortcomings notwithstanding.
post #156 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

It's also probably 40% of the weight, which is something the 7" naysayers always leave out. The iPad is pretty heavy for its form, especially for holding freely. A tablet of any size that give a good browsing and reading experience that is notably lighter will have a niche, other shortcomings notwithstanding.

+1. Very good point.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #157 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


1) No, it means that there are still plenty of people locked into Flash usage, but that doesn't change the fact that Flash is what is being left behind

+1. Another way to look at it. If you ONLY support flash, you are being left behind.
Remember the web is based on an open interpreted language standard called HTML. HTML is supported by EVERY architect and EVERY OS. Flash is an proprietary plugin extension to the web, that allowed you to do things that HTML at the time could not do. In other words, it filled a functional gap in HTML. Thank you Adobe. However, HTML has evolved and many of the things which HTML could not do prior to Flash is possible today. Thus the need for Flash going forward is diminished and web developers can leverage things which they can be assured will be supported by most all browsers going forward. This is because HTML and all future version will continue to be supported by EVERY architect and EVERY OS going forward as it is the natural evolution of the web language.

In summary, Its the safer route for web site designers, to update their website to the latest version of HTML and its capabilities, as it will support a wider audience than flash going forward (not just a subset of CPU architectures and/or OSes) So the question is not why don't you support Flash, the question is why don't you update your website support the latest version of HTML and determine if you even still need flash. If you can get duplicate the functionality of flash with HTML, then you stand a good chance to increase your visibility on all platforms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

2) If you need or want Flash just use something that plays well with it. Complaining about Flash on an iPad is like complaining about streaming HD video off a Windows phone via USB to a TV. Don't use it for the wrong job. Why be annoyed that a banana isn't crispy?

crispy banana? funny analogy... made me laugh.

How about this one. Complaining you can't use a floppy in your new laptop.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • JP Morgan: Kindle Fire is 'noise,' won't compete with Apple's iPad 2
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › JP Morgan: Kindle Fire is 'noise,' won't compete with Apple's iPad 2