I predict the price point will be over a thousand bucks. We are talking about the same company that made the MacBook Air. $1800 bucks, no DVD drive, no ethernet, no firewire, etc. But sexy as hell.
I very much doubt it. They can create a highly focussed experience with their own hardware and software design, and they want to make it available to a great many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Different markets.
Apple caters to the home consumers, that's their market and they fight hard against any competition in that area. Their products are designed with a high lust factor and invoke impulsive purchases and even theft.
Apple certainly designs more interesting/exciting products, which aren't necessarily useful for business. In fact, I suspect that MOST business users need a keyboard more than your average consumer does. Actually I should rephrase that - current PC users in businesses probably need their keyboards for what they currently do, but there's scope for different uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primedetailer
There is going to be a lot of new, very nice looking tablets showing up on the market, but the biggest advantage that Apple has and everyone already knows about, is Itunes.
Apple's got a great ecosystem of technologies that pulled together could be amazing
1) their own CPU designed for their precise needs
2) their own OS already acclaimed for ease of use and running on low end hardware
3) willingness to abandon any old stuff that doesn't move the device into the future
4) iPhoto, iMovie ... redesigned for a tablet? scroll your finger over an event to skim photos, create slideshows etc?
5) iWork redesigned for a tablet - can we work on basic word processing on a tablet? (does it need pen recognition?)
6) all the music & movies we already can get via iTunes
7) possible subscription media deal for TV &/or music onto the tablet
8) probably the iPhone apps (or easy redesigns)
9) highly functional touch-based safari web browser
10) online syncing of calendars, documents (iDisk), etc
11) possible great access to next generation of magazines and newspapers
12) Kindle app for the tablet with close to native kindle screen size? PDF viewer too. etc
13) bluetooth keyboard and mouse?
I know they must want this to be light and inexpensive. I wonder what balance they've come up with.
Dell is certainly selling more computers than Apple, but Apple is selling other things in addition that is making more profit and cost less, like media for instance and the nice kickback from AT&T for the iPhones.
Also the profits Microsoft makes from each copy of Windows needs to be figured in Dells profits too, not a cost, in order to more closely match Apple's, because Apple makes their own OS.
This is a good way to get rid of netbooks, which are hurting the industry and cannibalizing NOTEbooks. I doubt that this will be a new category in addition to your EEE PCs and MSI Winds. If anything this is a direct competition, and will probably be better, since the tablets will run a dedicated tablet OS, which will be lighter and better suited for light weight social use.
Where current netbooks run Windows or ubuntu, which are altimately desktop OSs (even though efforts are made to change that with Ubuntu Netbook Remix and all) the netbook OS will be able to run apps kinda like iphone, which will allow for even better performance, provided no multitasking or limited multitasking on much lower speced machines.
You may have seen some of my other posts and know that I hate netbooks, because i see them as nothing more then a 5 year old laptop performance with a tiny screen and keyboard. A tablet however, is different, in that I can hold it and walk with it, I can take it out and use right away (without having to open the lid or sit down). I can read it like a book on the train, moving it away from sunlight in a way that a netbook can't be moved. In other words, this is an iPhone with a bigger screen, something I sometimes with I could have. Now hopefully this will be it.
As long as the price is not outrageous (and I know it will be, just like it was for the 1st gen iPhone) I think I can see myself making use of this. Unlike a netbook.
The rest of industry is chasing Apple, even though they don't know yet where Apple is going.
The trick is to get Apple to chase you. And by "you" I mean the average tech company. And from what I've been observing I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm not being fanboyish either.
I think this is very unhealthy to have one or very few tech companies that are actually innovating in consumer computing tech. Apple is that one company out of a very short list of innovators. There should be many more.
I think this is very unhealthy to have one or very few tech companies that are actually innovating in consumer computing tech. Apple is that one company out of a very short list of innovators. There should be many more.
Yeah, people generally can't see more than a few degrees from where they are.
Psychologically (in counselling) if someone is in a bad place they see only a very few options which don't actually change much in their life at all. We see things through filters and it's difficult to make bigger leaps.
Apple is good at ignoring current ways of doing things, and looking at it with a fresh perspective. They're also good at grossly simplifying whatever they end up designing so that more people can "get it" even though it's something very new.
(edit: They are then criticised for over simplifying and leaving out all the extras.)
This is a good way to get rid of netbooks, which are hurting the industry and cannibalizing NOTEbooks. ...
You may have seen some of my other posts and know that I hate netbooks, because i see them as nothing more then a 5 year old laptop performance with a tiny screen and keyboard..
Why do you think that netbooks are hurting the industry? Why do you want to get rid of them, considering how many of your fellow consumers seem to want them?
Dell is certainly selling more computers than Apple, but Apple is selling other things in addition that is making more profit and cost less, like media for instance and the nice kickback from AT&T for the iPhones.
Dell sells as much other stuff as they can as does HP. TVs, GPS, phones, MP3 players, consoles, cameras, etc.
Quote:
Also the profits Microsoft makes from each copy of Windows needs to be figured in Dells profits too, not a cost, in order to more closely match Apple's, because Apple makes their own OS.
Why? OSX and the Mac ecosystem (iLife, iWork, etc) is something of a wash for Apple to make the high margin hw sales happen. If Dell thought it could and was useful, then it might do a custom Android or Linux variant and suck up the costs (large) and the benefit (marginal for Dell's business model).
The PC world is cost conscious with a lot low margin sales. Whenever the perform poorly they still have high sales and low (or no) profits. When Apple performs poorly they have low sales and low or no profits.
Why do you think that netbooks are hurting the industry? Why do you want to get rid of them, considering how many of your fellow consumers seem to want them?
Netbooks are great for consumers.
Terrible for computer manufacturers.
Not only are the profits terrible - about $15 per computer.
But they are displacing sales of full-priced notebooks.
A consumer that likes healthy manufacturers. Which is why I'm happy that Apple maintains good margins and very healthy profits. I want them to be around in 10 years making the same kind of great product.
This is also why I want a higher average sale price for iPhone apps. If the consumer believes everything should be $0.99 then nobody will build apps that cost more.
For netbooks, Intel has to juggle how badly Atoms impact their sales of other CPUs. If it ever becomes purely commodity you can forget about tick/tock improvements in processor speeds or moore's law. Moving to ever smaller processes is a hugely expensive proposition.
The trick is to get Apple to chase you. And by "you" I mean the average tech company. And from what I've been observing I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm not being fanboyish either.
I think this is very unhealthy to have one or very few tech companies that are actually innovating in consumer computing tech. Apple is that one company out of a very short list of innovators. There should be many more.
But there are not.
The fundamental problem with the technology industry is Microsoft. Not the company itself so much, as their dominance, and the way the bulk of the rest of the industry is slaved to them. So as we move into this new class of portable computing devices, you'll see a variety of devices which may vary somewhat by form factor, but all working essentially the same way (running a Microsoft OS), and Apple's approach. That's what passes for choice these days. Not so many years ago, you could have subtracted Apple from this picture, and what passed for choice was a bunch of slightly different PCs, all functioning the same way.
Overall the market has been conditioned to accept a lack of real choice by Microsoft's dominance, which for a long time was considered to not only be preordained but a good thing besides. I'd like to think that Apple is beginning to change that mindset, but we'll see. I view this new device as being a marker for the future direction of the industry. If Apple can make a big impact in a new product area which is essentially wide-open, then perhaps other technology companies will rethink their approach and their relationship with Microsoft, and we'll begin to see real choice emerge. This would be a far better outcome than dominance by any one company.
The fundamental problem with the technology industry is Microsoft. Not the company itself so much, as their dominance, and the way the bulk of the rest of the industry is slaved to them.
Very true.
I was wondering why would a company create a Netbook - when doing so is obviously commercial stupidity.
If you look at HP's Netbook it is a lovely device. And for all that investment and design, HP makes a pitiful sum per unit. These cheap netbooks are cannibalising sales of full-priced notebooks - and the sales of PCs are declining.
To add insult to injury, HP have had to do a recall. So any small profits they would have made have been wiped-out.
So why did they do it?
Because if Acer makes a netbook, and HP don't - the consumer will just buy an Acer.
The universal nature of Windows means that any given manufacturer is powerless to retain customers. The offering is Windows in different coloured wrappings. The very best that HP can do is make a shinier package.
In a food analogy. There only one company that makes beans. All all the outlets just compete to make a more attractive bean-tin. This one is chrome. This one has holograms! But the beans always taste the same.
Ultimately this is unhealthy for computer manufacturers, for the industry and for consumers.
A manufacturer cannot offer a more stable computer. Or an easier-to-use computer, because that's Microsoft's job.
It's not even like the beans taste that good!
You are right, Apple is breaking this model. But I worry that the surviving PC hardware manufacturers will be those who raced to the bottom and stayed there.
You are right, Apple is breaking this model. But I worry that the surviving PC hardware manufacturers will be those who raced to the bottom and stayed there.
True story. I hear all these huzzahs for Acer besting Dell, and wonder why anyone would root for either one of these companies.
Do these manufacturers just poop out devices to compete (?) because all of a sudden tablet computing is gearing up to be the next big wave... something Microsoft tried for quite some time to accomplish as I remember... Apple steps in and now all the followers (Dell) come out of the woodwork... However, all of this tablet press is actually positive for Apple, because if tablet computing does take off, it will be another channel for consumers to continue to learn about the Apple experience (Mac OS X) - and it's ecosystem, which is at the top of the class.
The fundamental problem with the technology industry is Microsoft. Not the company itself so much, as their dominance, and the way the bulk of the rest of the industry is slaved to them.
Microsoft and Intel is what saved us from a balkanized computer world. If you don't like the state of the industry today, imagine what it would have been like if HP, SGI, Sun, DEC and IBM still dominated computing. Computers would still cost $3000-$6000 and be about 1/10th as fast.
Even, or perhaps especially if, Apple had retained the PC crown.
Microsoft and Intel forced a de facto standard on an industry totally incapable of adhering to de jure standards or even able to make common standards that simply didn't suck.
Microsoft sold compilers for hundreds when Unix vendors sold them for thousands. Microsoft sold operating systems for tens of dollars when Unix vendors sold them for tens of thousands. Microsoft sold word processing suites for hundreds when other vendors wanted thousands.
All those computing companies that are dead are dead for very good reason. They sucked and they wanted a lot of money to continue sucking.
Gates and Grove were the two best things to happen to computing in the 80s. Yes, even more than Jobs and I'm a real fanboi. But he couldn't make a cheap mac well...ever.
Microsoft and Intel is what saved us from a balkanized computer world. If you don't like the state of the industry today, imagine what it would have been like if HP, SGI, Sun, DEC and IBM still dominated computing. Computers would still cost $3000-$6000 and be about 1/10th as fast.
I could not possibly disagree more. I don't know where anyone gets the idea that competition would utterly fail us in the computer market when we count on it driving innovation and lowering costs everywhere else. So this argument makes absolutely no sense to me. None whatsoever!
Microsoft and Intel is what saved us from a balkanized computer world.
Gates and Grove were the two best things to happen to computing in the 80s. Yes, even more than Jobs and I'm a real fanboi. But he couldn't make a cheap mac well...ever.
I also disagree.
Yes, Gates brought a powerful unifying vision, which served the interests of consumers.
But that unifying effect has gone well past its sell-by date.
The present-day effect of Microsoft's near monopoly is stagnation. The market is now incapable of delivering innovation. All PC vendors can do is change the color of the wrappings. The influence of Microsoft has become a force for anti-competition and anti-free-market.
Yes, consumers benefit from low prices. But consumers now have little or no choice.
And the idea that computers can be "balkanised" is simply no longer possible. The web, xml, ethernet and a hundred other technologies means that data can flow effortlessly between disparate systems. Go to a cutting-edge visual effects house and see Macs, PCs and Linux machines all doing what they do best. The walls don't matter anymore.
We don't care what is under the hood, we only care how well it drives.
Consumers benefit from competition. Variety is what creates choice, and choice drives prices down. Monopolization has just the opposite effect. Microsoft's 25 year stranglehold on the market has done nobody not named Gates any good.
Comments
I predict the price point will be over a thousand bucks. We are talking about the same company that made the MacBook Air. $1800 bucks, no DVD drive, no ethernet, no firewire, etc. But sexy as hell.
I very much doubt it. They can create a highly focussed experience with their own hardware and software design, and they want to make it available to a great many people.
Different markets.
Apple caters to the home consumers, that's their market and they fight hard against any competition in that area. Their products are designed with a high lust factor and invoke impulsive purchases and even theft.
Apple certainly designs more interesting/exciting products, which aren't necessarily useful for business. In fact, I suspect that MOST business users need a keyboard more than your average consumer does. Actually I should rephrase that - current PC users in businesses probably need their keyboards for what they currently do, but there's scope for different uses.
There is going to be a lot of new, very nice looking tablets showing up on the market, but the biggest advantage that Apple has and everyone already knows about, is Itunes.
Apple's got a great ecosystem of technologies that pulled together could be amazing
1) their own CPU designed for their precise needs
2) their own OS already acclaimed for ease of use and running on low end hardware
3) willingness to abandon any old stuff that doesn't move the device into the future
4) iPhoto, iMovie ... redesigned for a tablet? scroll your finger over an event to skim photos, create slideshows etc?
5) iWork redesigned for a tablet - can we work on basic word processing on a tablet? (does it need pen recognition?)
6) all the music & movies we already can get via iTunes
7) possible subscription media deal for TV &/or music onto the tablet
8) probably the iPhone apps (or easy redesigns)
9) highly functional touch-based safari web browser
10) online syncing of calendars, documents (iDisk), etc
11) possible great access to next generation of magazines and newspapers
12) Kindle app for the tablet with close to native kindle screen size? PDF viewer too. etc
13) bluetooth keyboard and mouse?
I know they must want this to be light and inexpensive. I wonder what balance they've come up with.
The comparisons are unfair.
Dell is certainly selling more computers than Apple, but Apple is selling other things in addition that is making more profit and cost less, like media for instance and the nice kickback from AT&T for the iPhones.
Also the profits Microsoft makes from each copy of Windows needs to be figured in Dells profits too, not a cost, in order to more closely match Apple's, because Apple makes their own OS.
Those are valid points.
Where current netbooks run Windows or ubuntu, which are altimately desktop OSs (even though efforts are made to change that with Ubuntu Netbook Remix and all) the netbook OS will be able to run apps kinda like iphone, which will allow for even better performance, provided no multitasking or limited multitasking on much lower speced machines.
You may have seen some of my other posts and know that I hate netbooks, because i see them as nothing more then a 5 year old laptop performance with a tiny screen and keyboard. A tablet however, is different, in that I can hold it and walk with it, I can take it out and use right away (without having to open the lid or sit down). I can read it like a book on the train, moving it away from sunlight in a way that a netbook can't be moved. In other words, this is an iPhone with a bigger screen, something I sometimes with I could have. Now hopefully this will be it.
As long as the price is not outrageous (and I know it will be, just like it was for the 1st gen iPhone) I think I can see myself making use of this. Unlike a netbook.
Bingo. You win a cookie.
The rest of industry is chasing Apple, even though they don't know yet where Apple is going.
The trick is to get Apple to chase you. And by "you" I mean the average tech company. And from what I've been observing I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm not being fanboyish either.
I think this is very unhealthy to have one or very few tech companies that are actually innovating in consumer computing tech. Apple is that one company out of a very short list of innovators. There should be many more.
But there are not.
I think this is very unhealthy to have one or very few tech companies that are actually innovating in consumer computing tech. Apple is that one company out of a very short list of innovators. There should be many more.
Yeah, people generally can't see more than a few degrees from where they are.
Psychologically (in counselling) if someone is in a bad place they see only a very few options which don't actually change much in their life at all. We see things through filters and it's difficult to make bigger leaps.
Apple is good at ignoring current ways of doing things, and looking at it with a fresh perspective. They're also good at grossly simplifying whatever they end up designing so that more people can "get it" even though it's something very new.
(edit: They are then criticised for over simplifying and leaving out all the extras.)
This is a good way to get rid of netbooks, which are hurting the industry and cannibalizing NOTEbooks. ...
You may have seen some of my other posts and know that I hate netbooks, because i see them as nothing more then a 5 year old laptop performance with a tiny screen and keyboard..
Why do you think that netbooks are hurting the industry? Why do you want to get rid of them, considering how many of your fellow consumers seem to want them?
The comparisons are unfair.
Why? They're all in the same business segment.
Dell is certainly selling more computers than Apple, but Apple is selling other things in addition that is making more profit and cost less, like media for instance and the nice kickback from AT&T for the iPhones.
Dell sells as much other stuff as they can as does HP. TVs, GPS, phones, MP3 players, consoles, cameras, etc.
Also the profits Microsoft makes from each copy of Windows needs to be figured in Dells profits too, not a cost, in order to more closely match Apple's, because Apple makes their own OS.
Why? OSX and the Mac ecosystem (iLife, iWork, etc) is something of a wash for Apple to make the high margin hw sales happen. If Dell thought it could and was useful, then it might do a custom Android or Linux variant and suck up the costs (large) and the benefit (marginal for Dell's business model).
The PC world is cost conscious with a lot low margin sales. Whenever the perform poorly they still have high sales and low (or no) profits. When Apple performs poorly they have low sales and low or no profits.
Why do you think that netbooks are hurting the industry? Why do you want to get rid of them, considering how many of your fellow consumers seem to want them?
Netbooks are great for consumers.
Terrible for computer manufacturers.
Not only are the profits terrible - about $15 per computer.
But they are displacing sales of full-priced notebooks.
C.
Netbooks are great for consumers.
Terrible for computer manufacturers.
Not only are the profits terrible - about $15 per computer.
But they are displacing sales of full-priced notebooks.
C.
Are you a computer manufacturer? Or a consumer?
Are you a computer manufacturer? Or a consumer?
A consumer that likes healthy manufacturers. Which is why I'm happy that Apple maintains good margins and very healthy profits. I want them to be around in 10 years making the same kind of great product.
This is also why I want a higher average sale price for iPhone apps. If the consumer believes everything should be $0.99 then nobody will build apps that cost more.
For netbooks, Intel has to juggle how badly Atoms impact their sales of other CPUs. If it ever becomes purely commodity you can forget about tick/tock improvements in processor speeds or moore's law. Moving to ever smaller processes is a hugely expensive proposition.
The trick is to get Apple to chase you. And by "you" I mean the average tech company. And from what I've been observing I don't see that happening anytime soon. I'm not being fanboyish either.
I think this is very unhealthy to have one or very few tech companies that are actually innovating in consumer computing tech. Apple is that one company out of a very short list of innovators. There should be many more.
But there are not.
The fundamental problem with the technology industry is Microsoft. Not the company itself so much, as their dominance, and the way the bulk of the rest of the industry is slaved to them. So as we move into this new class of portable computing devices, you'll see a variety of devices which may vary somewhat by form factor, but all working essentially the same way (running a Microsoft OS), and Apple's approach. That's what passes for choice these days. Not so many years ago, you could have subtracted Apple from this picture, and what passed for choice was a bunch of slightly different PCs, all functioning the same way.
Overall the market has been conditioned to accept a lack of real choice by Microsoft's dominance, which for a long time was considered to not only be preordained but a good thing besides. I'd like to think that Apple is beginning to change that mindset, but we'll see. I view this new device as being a marker for the future direction of the industry. If Apple can make a big impact in a new product area which is essentially wide-open, then perhaps other technology companies will rethink their approach and their relationship with Microsoft, and we'll begin to see real choice emerge. This would be a far better outcome than dominance by any one company.
The fundamental problem with the technology industry is Microsoft. Not the company itself so much, as their dominance, and the way the bulk of the rest of the industry is slaved to them.
Very true.
I was wondering why would a company create a Netbook - when doing so is obviously commercial stupidity.
If you look at HP's Netbook it is a lovely device. And for all that investment and design, HP makes a pitiful sum per unit. These cheap netbooks are cannibalising sales of full-priced notebooks - and the sales of PCs are declining.
To add insult to injury, HP have had to do a recall. So any small profits they would have made have been wiped-out.
So why did they do it?
Because if Acer makes a netbook, and HP don't - the consumer will just buy an Acer.
The universal nature of Windows means that any given manufacturer is powerless to retain customers. The offering is Windows in different coloured wrappings. The very best that HP can do is make a shinier package.
In a food analogy. There only one company that makes beans. All all the outlets just compete to make a more attractive bean-tin. This one is chrome. This one has holograms! But the beans always taste the same.
Ultimately this is unhealthy for computer manufacturers, for the industry and for consumers.
A manufacturer cannot offer a more stable computer. Or an easier-to-use computer, because that's Microsoft's job.
It's not even like the beans taste that good!
You are right, Apple is breaking this model. But I worry that the surviving PC hardware manufacturers will be those who raced to the bottom and stayed there.
C.
You are right, Apple is breaking this model. But I worry that the surviving PC hardware manufacturers will be those who raced to the bottom and stayed there.
True story. I hear all these huzzahs for Acer besting Dell, and wonder why anyone would root for either one of these companies.
The fundamental problem with the technology industry is Microsoft. Not the company itself so much, as their dominance,
I agree. MS set back the PC industry greatly, notably in the late 80's and through the mid-to-late '90's.
We need viable alternatives.
The fundamental problem with the technology industry is Microsoft. Not the company itself so much, as their dominance, and the way the bulk of the rest of the industry is slaved to them.
Microsoft and Intel is what saved us from a balkanized computer world. If you don't like the state of the industry today, imagine what it would have been like if HP, SGI, Sun, DEC and IBM still dominated computing. Computers would still cost $3000-$6000 and be about 1/10th as fast.
Even, or perhaps especially if, Apple had retained the PC crown.
Microsoft and Intel forced a de facto standard on an industry totally incapable of adhering to de jure standards or even able to make common standards that simply didn't suck.
Microsoft sold compilers for hundreds when Unix vendors sold them for thousands. Microsoft sold operating systems for tens of dollars when Unix vendors sold them for tens of thousands. Microsoft sold word processing suites for hundreds when other vendors wanted thousands.
All those computing companies that are dead are dead for very good reason. They sucked and they wanted a lot of money to continue sucking.
Gates and Grove were the two best things to happen to computing in the 80s. Yes, even more than Jobs and I'm a real fanboi. But he couldn't make a cheap mac well...ever.
Microsoft and Intel is what saved us from a balkanized computer world. If you don't like the state of the industry today, imagine what it would have been like if HP, SGI, Sun, DEC and IBM still dominated computing. Computers would still cost $3000-$6000 and be about 1/10th as fast.
I could not possibly disagree more. I don't know where anyone gets the idea that competition would utterly fail us in the computer market when we count on it driving innovation and lowering costs everywhere else. So this argument makes absolutely no sense to me. None whatsoever!
Microsoft and Intel is what saved us from a balkanized computer world.
Gates and Grove were the two best things to happen to computing in the 80s. Yes, even more than Jobs and I'm a real fanboi. But he couldn't make a cheap mac well...ever.
I also disagree.
Yes, Gates brought a powerful unifying vision, which served the interests of consumers.
But that unifying effect has gone well past its sell-by date.
The present-day effect of Microsoft's near monopoly is stagnation. The market is now incapable of delivering innovation. All PC vendors can do is change the color of the wrappings. The influence of Microsoft has become a force for anti-competition and anti-free-market.
Yes, consumers benefit from low prices. But consumers now have little or no choice.
And the idea that computers can be "balkanised" is simply no longer possible. The web, xml, ethernet and a hundred other technologies means that data can flow effortlessly between disparate systems. Go to a cutting-edge visual effects house and see Macs, PCs and Linux machines all doing what they do best. The walls don't matter anymore.
We don't care what is under the hood, we only care how well it drives.
C.