Believe it or not it's actually mostly wants. If I need a dentist I will find one on my own. If I see an billboard for a dentist with big boobs I can oogle at while I'm in the chair upside down, I might just visit that dentist once for a lick....I mean kick.
LOL reminds me a little of that Seinfeld episode where they put him under and after that he feels "violated" somehow
MP3 players weren't niche, they were just extremely high priced but were the next logic step for music consumption and if you think otherwise then you'd still be lugging a case of CDs around.
Just to correct you on this. Before the iPod, MP3 players were not high priced. Especially compared to the iPod, which when released, was $399 for 5GB, making it the most expensive MP3 player ever. Throughout the iPod's rise to popularity, there were always cheaper alternatives, as there are today.
But before the iPod, MP3 players fit into one of two categories. Tiny in capacity (16MB-128MB -- that's MEGABYTES) or huge physically with a 2.5" hard drive, making them too large to fit in a typical pocket. Apple came in and gave us a combination of capacity and portability, together with a beautiful design, a fantastic human interface method (scrollwheel), and a big enough display to make it really useful.
MP3 players were a niche product and only computer nerds cared about them. The iPod changed that. Not immediately, as when it was released, only Apple computer nerds cared about them, but eventually, as word got around that this was a terrific way to listen to music, even for people who did NOT care about downloading music off Napster (which it had not been before the iPod).
Go away Sir, your common sense is not needed nor appropriate here. You're correct, FFS Ballmer didn't really demo doing anything much on the HP Slate did he?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpM
There is no real excitement about the "Slate PC" because it is not much new. Microsoft advertised such "slate form factor" devises since years as Ultra-Mobile PCs (UMPC) ... and they didn't sell well at all.
Part of the reason was that they were expensive and clunky and there was no real use-case known for them. The current fuss about tablets is a big different: They are not that expensive since they have to compete with netbooks and smartphones. They finally have a little better design; in particular they are no longer that thick . And you can finally use them with the finger, no need for a stylus.
What is still missing, is the real use-case and how being a full-fledged Windows 7 PC helps with it. They certainly are appealing as a secondary or ternary computer for surfing the web and E-Book reading - so providing bigger screens for that than smartphones and replacing what netbooks were initially designed for before manufacturers starting installing Windows XP on them and selling them as cheap laptops without optical drives. And it's a step ahead if you have dedicated E-Book software on such a device. But browsing the web with a regular Windows browser using a touch screen with no dedicated touch gestures? Not really. Playing regular Windows games? Mostly not interesting if they didn't adapt the controls to a touch screen - just try to play Minesweeper on a touchscreen and you'll see what I mean .... not even starting about first person shooters or flight simulator or anything fancy.
I think, such a devise really needs careful adjustment and Safari on iPhone and the iTunes App Store with tons of E-Book software and games for touch interfaces is a much better direction than just saying "it runs Windows 7" ... but of course, Apps for Cocoa Touch would still needed to be adapted to bigger screens and so on.
Just to correct you on this. Before the iPod, MP3 players were not high priced. Especially compared to the iPod, which when released, was $399 for 5GB, making it the most expensive MP3 player ever. Throughout the iPod's rise to popularity, there were always cheaper alternatives, as there are today.
But before the iPod, MP3 players fit into one of two categories. Tiny in capacity (16MB-128MB -- that's MEGABYTES) or huge physically with a 2.5" hard drive, making them too large to fit in a typical pocket. Apple came in and gave us a combination of capacity and portability, together with a beautiful design, a fantastic human interface method (scrollwheel), and a big enough display to make it really useful.
MP3 players were a niche product and only computer nerds cared about them. The iPod changed that. Not immediately, as when it was released, only Apple computer nerds cared about them, but eventually, as word got around that this was a terrific way to listen to music, even for people who did NOT care about downloading music off Napster (which it had not been before the iPod).
And just to correct YOU on a couple points (), the iPod did not initially have a click wheel and Apple nerds really didn't care that much either. Apple users were the most vocal with the 'WTF Apple?' comments. It wasn't until we got the click wheel and the iTunes store that it really took off as a consume device.
It wasn't until we got the click wheel and the iTunes store that it really took off as a consume device.
And I think everyone is waiting with great anticipation to see what Apple brings to the already existing, but niche and historically expensive slate/tablet platform that is the equivalent of the click wheel and iTunes. Some "a ha!" innovation that will open up the market not just for Apple, but for all the copy-cats, too.
MS obviously isn't trying. Or they are so big and have their fingers in so many pots that they can't/won't take the time to apply their very prodigious brain-power to designing and releasing a REAL tablet user experience. (Not OS. Windows 7 is a perfectly adequate OS for a slate. But the entire user experience from start up, typical use, integration with content sources, to shut down. That's where Apple makes their money.)
#2. It's because of torrents that iPods have taken off.
Take away the people who download illegal music and rip DVDs to their iPods and you don't have many sales.
Torrent users do not make a small segment. It's a HUGE base. And those people share GBs with their friends who don't download. All the girls I know get there music by asking their bfs who download music. "Download this and that for me please".
Take away the iPod and the iTunes Store and you don't have many sales.
But now you're talking about apps too aren't you? We were talking about a long time ago when the click wheel came out and no one knew what apps were. At that time you certainly didn't need the iTunes store.
Hey did the iPod and iTunes debut at same time? Was there ever a time with iPods but no store? Of course right?
And just to correct YOU on a couple points (), the iPod did not initially have a click wheel and Apple nerds really didn't care that much either. Apple users were the most vocal with the 'WTF Apple?' comments. It wasn't until we got the click wheel and the iTunes store that it really took off as a consume device.
I was an Apple nerd, and I saw the original iPod for exactly what it was. It was the MP3 device that had me sold the minute I heard about it. I posted on these very forums that it would be hugely successful. It was exactly what I wanted in a music playback device. I bought it the very first day it was available here in HK (in January 2002).
Of course, I meant to say "scroll wheel", which had the exact features of the click wheel, less the solid state mechanics. Solid state or not, the scroll wheel was a revolutionary concept. It was actually opening it up to Windows that allowed it to take off, not the iTunes store.
I was an Apple nerd, and I saw the original iPod for exactly what it was. It was the MP3 device that had me sold the minute I heard about it. I posted on these very forums that it would be hugely successful. It was exactly what I wanted in a music playback device. I bought it the very first day it was available here in HK (in January 2002).
Of course, I meant to say "scroll wheel", which had the exact features of the click wheel, less the solid state mechanics. Solid state or not, the scroll wheel was a revolutionary concept. It was actually opening it up to Windows that allowed it to take off, not the iTunes store.
Fair enough. But the majority of the Apple nerds really didn't see the point yet of the iPod at first release. I didn't buy one until gen 4 personally.
#2. It's because of torrents that iPods have taken off.
LOL. Oops. I meant consumer. And I do not agree with #2. The average consumer doesn't even know what torrent means. And the avergae consumer is what made the iPod a success. Over 6 billion songs downloaded off iTunes. That says it all right there.
Quote:
And I think everyone is waiting with great anticipation to see what Apple brings to the already existing, but niche and historically expensive slate/tablet platform that is the equivalent of the click wheel and iTunes. Some "a ha!" innovation that will open up the market not just for Apple, but for all the copy-cats, too.
Right. And that is what alot of people keep missing time and time again when they downplay Apple products. They are so focused on the specs and the gadget and not on the experience and integrations.
Did "torrents" even exist when the iPod started ramping up sales? I know that file sharing services like the old Napster had a hand in putting a lot of music on peoples iPods, as did CD rips, but I'd be surprised if torrents were in broad enough use back then to have had much of an impact on sales.
LOL. Oops. I meant consumer. And I do not agree with #2. The average consumer doesn't even know what torrent means. And the avergae consumer is what made the iPod a success.
That's irrelevant. Yes the iPod is a success. No, it's not because of music sales on iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Did "torrents" even exist when the iPod started ramping up sales? I know that file sharing services like the old Napster had a hand in putting a lot of music on peoples iPods, as did CD rips, but I'd be surprised if torrents were in broad enough use back then to have had much of an impact on sales.
yeah but we're talking about when and what caused a more rapid increase of music sales on iTunes. It has been happening ever since torrenting took off.
That's irrelevant. Yes the iPod is a success. No, it's not because of music sales on iTunes.
yeah but we're talking about when and what caused a more rapid increase of music sales on iTunes. It has been happening ever since torrenting took off.
OK, I took a look at the two timelines and I stand corrected-- torrents did indeed ramp up just prior to the iPods big run at mass sales. I was thinking that mass torrent use came a little later.
That's irrelevant. Yes the iPod is a success. No, it's not because of music sales on iTunes.
yeah but we're talking about when and what caused a more rapid increase of music sales on iTunes. It has been happening ever since torrenting took off.
What is irrelevant? The average customer? You really want to stick with that story? And now you are saying torrents caused the rapid increase of sales on iTunes? You got any actual market research or numbers to back that up? Nevermind that that is NOT what we are talking about.The sales of the iPod TRIPLED the quarter after the iTunes store opened even beating out the previous Christmas sales. Before that sales fluctuated up and down. Actual numbers back up what I have said.
What is irrelevant? The average customer? You really want to stick with that story? And now you are saying torrents caused the rapid increase of sales on iTunes? You got any actual market research or numbers to back that up? Nevermind that that is NOT what we are talking about.The sales of the iPod TRIPLED the quarter after the iTunes store opened even beating out the previous Christmas sales. Before that sales fluctuated up and down. Actual numbers back up what I have said.
Right. Good old Post Hoc fallacy. Just because torrent and iPod use may have been growing at the same time by no means establishes that the one had anything to do with the other.
i dont really know about MP3 players being niche, i was a 7th grader at the time the ipod debuted and there were a few kids rolling around with MP3 players one of whom was my friend who also introduced me to Torrents, i didnt even see my first iPod until halfway in 8th grade (2002) and the time i went to high school in 03 they had blown up.
I remember seeing my first iPod, it was the one that didnt look like an an eye sore because it didnt have the raised buttons. I didnt get my first one until 05? It was the first year the Nano came out iirc cause i got a 4gb in black for christmas cause i had a Moto Rokr that i had all kinds of modded and broke that 100 song limit Apple imposed until i bricked it and couldnt get it to boot anymore and i only had it for a few months lol.
Anyways the iPod benefited from the huge boom of computers in homes (we didnt get one until like high school cause we got DSL) and piracy. iirc Napster had been shutdown around 03 but Kazaa had taken over and Limewire was the largely unknown p2p client. CD-Rs were still way overpriced at this time as well so burning CDs was illogical but not dead since cars didnt have MP3 playback (so you still kept that case of CDs) or hook ups. All these things culminated to the iPods success.
i dont really know about MP3 players being niche, i was a 7th grader at the time the ipod debuted and there were a few kids rolling around with MP3 players one of whom was my friend who also introduced me to Torrents, i didnt even see my first iPod until halfway in 8th grade (2002) and the time i went to high school in 03 they had blown up.
I remember seeing my first iPod, it was the one that didnt look like an an eye sore because it didnt have the raised buttons. I didnt get my first one until 05? It was the first year the Nano came out iirc cause i got a 4gb in black for christmas cause i had a Moto Rokr that i had all kinds of modded and broke that 100 song limit Apple imposed until i bricked it and couldnt get it to boot anymore and i only had it for a few months lol.
Anyways the iPod benefited from the huge boom of computers in homes (we didnt get one until like high school cause we got DSL) and piracy. iirc Napster had been shutdown around 03 but Kazaa had taken over and Limewire was the largely unknown p2p client. CD-Rs were still way overpriced at this time as well so burning CDs was illogical but not dead since cars didnt have MP3 playback (so you still kept that case of CDs) or hook ups. All these things culminated to the iPods success.
I'm sorry, but citing your personal experience and running through some contemporaneous developments to conclude that "All these things culminated to the iPods success" is backwards reasoning, aka the Post Hoc fallacy.
It's also a variation on the standard "right place, right time" argument that Apple skeptics trot out to explain any successes that company may have, with the implication that Apple just blunders into its good fortune by being slightly ahead of the curve.
If you bring out a product that changes its market, and the entire associated economy of that market, forever, maybe, just maybe, that's "luck." If you do it twice within a few years, all the while growing your computer market share and posting the best profits in the business, maybe there's a really smart, capable strategy at work?
If you have to make convoluted arguments to explain Apple's runaway success with formally fringe segments of the computing industry, in order to establish that any tablet from Apple is destined to fail, I would take that as a sign that there's a problem with your underlying assumptions.
I crabbed the links from the Macalope, but it is pretty interesting to look at the lasttwo time MS introduced a "slate" computer. By the way, for all the people strenuously insisting that "slate" is the customary name for these things so shut up all ready about MS fucking with Apple by calling it such, you'll note that they didn't call it that in either of these previous cases, going with "tablet" and "UMPC" respectively. Please also note that this sorry track record might just have a wee bit to do with why we've failed to be blown away by the Next Great Thing From the People Who Depend On Your Short Term Memory Loss.
I would also urge anyone still under the thrall of "Courier" to take a good long look at MS's giddy conceptual videos for their Origami UMPC thingee, if only because it's classic MS "just close your eyes and dream with us" marketing. I well remember the cries of the faithful when that bit of whimsy was distributed, about how Apple was about to get slammed by genuine innovation, how MS's deep pockets and vast underground caverns of research bots were bringing the hurt, and how Cupertino was suddenly left looking like yesterday's news. Listening to people talk about MS and Apple is like living in Groundhog's day, except MS and her fans are Bill Murray and they never learn a goddamn thing.
Microsoft’s tablet “strategy” is like an Escher painting, full of staircases leading in every direction that all ultimately just go round in circles. The company so badly wants to be Prometheus, bringing fire to the mortals. Instead it’s like some drunk dude flicking matches at us.
There is no real excitement about the "Slate PC" because it is not much new. Microsoft advertised such "slate form factor" devises since years as Ultra-Mobile PCs (UMPC) ... and they didn't sell well at all.
Part of the reason was that they were expensive and clunky and there was no real use-case known for them. The current fuss about tablets is a big different: They are not that expensive since they have to compete with netbooks and smartphones. They finally have a little better design; in particular they are no longer that thick . And you can finally use them with the finger, no need for a stylus.
What is still missing, is the real use-case and how being a full-fledged Windows 7 PC helps with it. They certainly are appealing as a secondary or ternary computer for surfing the web and E-Book reading - so providing bigger screens for that than smartphones and replacing what netbooks were initially designed for before manufacturers starting installing Windows XP on them and selling them as cheap laptops without optical drives. And it's a step ahead if you have dedicated E-Book software on such a device. But browsing the web with a regular Windows browser using a touch screen with no dedicated touch gestures? Not really. Playing regular Windows games? Mostly not interesting if they didn't adapt the controls to a touch screen - just try to play Minesweeper on a touchscreen and you'll see what I mean .... not even starting about first person shooters or flight simulator or anything fancy.
I think, such a devise really needs careful adjustment and Safari on iPhone and the iTunes App Store with tons of E-Book software and games for touch interfaces is a much better direction than just saying "it runs Windows 7" ... but of course, Apps for Cocoa Touch would still needed to be adapted to bigger screens and so on.
I'm actually the opposite! I can't see why you wouldn't want your slate running Windows 7 (or OS X). IMO the worst thing Apple can do is treat their slate as an iPhone with a bigger screen. Having a totally custom UI\\OS works brilliantly for the iPhone\\iPod but it would be limiting for a larger screen device.
If I'm going to be handing over many hundreds of dollars I want a versatile all-in-one device that not only acts as an eBook/portable media device/web & email browser but is also able to replace my netbook, rather than just be another way to consume iTunes content (i.e. like Apple TV).
At the moment I take an iPhone, iPod and a netbook with me so it doesn't matter how pretty Apple's slate is there is just no way it is going to find room in my bag if it can't replace my netbook.
The other alternative if that it never leaves the house and is just a convenient way to read and web browse without having a netbook on my lap which sounds awesome... but not for $500+.
Comments
Believe it or not it's actually mostly wants. If I need a dentist I will find one on my own. If I see an billboard for a dentist with big boobs I can oogle at while I'm in the chair upside down, I might just visit that dentist once for a lick....I mean kick.
LOL reminds me a little of that Seinfeld episode where they put him under and after that he feels "violated" somehow
MP3 players weren't niche, they were just extremely high priced but were the next logic step for music consumption and if you think otherwise then you'd still be lugging a case of CDs around.
Just to correct you on this. Before the iPod, MP3 players were not high priced. Especially compared to the iPod, which when released, was $399 for 5GB, making it the most expensive MP3 player ever. Throughout the iPod's rise to popularity, there were always cheaper alternatives, as there are today.
But before the iPod, MP3 players fit into one of two categories. Tiny in capacity (16MB-128MB -- that's MEGABYTES) or huge physically with a 2.5" hard drive, making them too large to fit in a typical pocket. Apple came in and gave us a combination of capacity and portability, together with a beautiful design, a fantastic human interface method (scrollwheel), and a big enough display to make it really useful.
MP3 players were a niche product and only computer nerds cared about them. The iPod changed that. Not immediately, as when it was released, only Apple computer nerds cared about them, but eventually, as word got around that this was a terrific way to listen to music, even for people who did NOT care about downloading music off Napster (which it had not been before the iPod).
There is no real excitement about the "Slate PC" because it is not much new. Microsoft advertised such "slate form factor" devises since years as Ultra-Mobile PCs (UMPC) ... and they didn't sell well at all.
Part of the reason was that they were expensive and clunky and there was no real use-case known for them. The current fuss about tablets is a big different: They are not that expensive since they have to compete with netbooks and smartphones. They finally have a little better design; in particular they are no longer that thick . And you can finally use them with the finger, no need for a stylus.
What is still missing, is the real use-case and how being a full-fledged Windows 7 PC helps with it. They certainly are appealing as a secondary or ternary computer for surfing the web and E-Book reading - so providing bigger screens for that than smartphones and replacing what netbooks were initially designed for before manufacturers starting installing Windows XP on them and selling them as cheap laptops without optical drives. And it's a step ahead if you have dedicated E-Book software on such a device. But browsing the web with a regular Windows browser using a touch screen with no dedicated touch gestures? Not really. Playing regular Windows games? Mostly not interesting if they didn't adapt the controls to a touch screen - just try to play Minesweeper on a touchscreen and you'll see what I mean .... not even starting about first person shooters or flight simulator or anything fancy.
I think, such a devise really needs careful adjustment and Safari on iPhone and the iTunes App Store with tons of E-Book software and games for touch interfaces is a much better direction than just saying "it runs Windows 7" ... but of course, Apps for Cocoa Touch would still needed to be adapted to bigger screens and so on.
Just to correct you on this. Before the iPod, MP3 players were not high priced. Especially compared to the iPod, which when released, was $399 for 5GB, making it the most expensive MP3 player ever. Throughout the iPod's rise to popularity, there were always cheaper alternatives, as there are today.
But before the iPod, MP3 players fit into one of two categories. Tiny in capacity (16MB-128MB -- that's MEGABYTES) or huge physically with a 2.5" hard drive, making them too large to fit in a typical pocket. Apple came in and gave us a combination of capacity and portability, together with a beautiful design, a fantastic human interface method (scrollwheel), and a big enough display to make it really useful.
MP3 players were a niche product and only computer nerds cared about them. The iPod changed that. Not immediately, as when it was released, only Apple computer nerds cared about them, but eventually, as word got around that this was a terrific way to listen to music, even for people who did NOT care about downloading music off Napster (which it had not been before the iPod).
And just to correct YOU on a couple points (
It wasn't until we got the click wheel and the iTunes store that it really took off as a consume device.
And I think everyone is waiting with great anticipation to see what Apple brings to the already existing, but niche and historically expensive slate/tablet platform that is the equivalent of the click wheel and iTunes. Some "a ha!" innovation that will open up the market not just for Apple, but for all the copy-cats, too.
MS obviously isn't trying. Or they are so big and have their fingers in so many pots that they can't/won't take the time to apply their very prodigious brain-power to designing and releasing a REAL tablet user experience. (Not OS. Windows 7 is a perfectly adequate OS for a slate. But the entire user experience from start up, typical use, integration with content sources, to shut down. That's where Apple makes their money.)
- Jasen.
It wasn't until we got the click wheel and the iTunes store that it really took off as a consume device.
#1. I don't eat my music
#2. It's because of torrents that iPods have taken off.
Take away the people who download illegal music and rip DVDs to their iPods and you don't have many sales.
Torrent users do not make a small segment. It's a HUGE base. And those people share GBs with their friends who don't download. All the girls I know get there music by asking their bfs who download music. "Download this and that for me please".
#1. I don't eat my music
#2. It's because of torrents that iPods have taken off.
Take away the people downloading illegal music who bought iPods and you don't have many sales.
Take away the iPod and the iTunes Store and you don't have many sales.
Take away the iPod and the iTunes Store and you don't have many sales.
But now you're talking about apps too aren't you? We were talking about a long time ago when the click wheel came out and no one knew what apps were. At that time you certainly didn't need the iTunes store.
Hey did the iPod and iTunes debut at same time? Was there ever a time with iPods but no store? Of course right?
And just to correct YOU on a couple points (
I was an Apple nerd, and I saw the original iPod for exactly what it was. It was the MP3 device that had me sold the minute I heard about it. I posted on these very forums that it would be hugely successful. It was exactly what I wanted in a music playback device. I bought it the very first day it was available here in HK (in January 2002).
Of course, I meant to say "scroll wheel", which had the exact features of the click wheel, less the solid state mechanics. Solid state or not, the scroll wheel was a revolutionary concept. It was actually opening it up to Windows that allowed it to take off, not the iTunes store.
I was an Apple nerd, and I saw the original iPod for exactly what it was. It was the MP3 device that had me sold the minute I heard about it. I posted on these very forums that it would be hugely successful. It was exactly what I wanted in a music playback device. I bought it the very first day it was available here in HK (in January 2002).
Of course, I meant to say "scroll wheel", which had the exact features of the click wheel, less the solid state mechanics. Solid state or not, the scroll wheel was a revolutionary concept. It was actually opening it up to Windows that allowed it to take off, not the iTunes store.
Fair enough. But the majority of the Apple nerds really didn't see the point yet of the iPod at first release. I didn't buy one until gen 4 personally.
#1. I don't eat my music
#2. It's because of torrents that iPods have taken off.
LOL. Oops. I meant consumer. And I do not agree with #2. The average consumer doesn't even know what torrent means. And the avergae consumer is what made the iPod a success. Over 6 billion songs downloaded off iTunes. That says it all right there.
And I think everyone is waiting with great anticipation to see what Apple brings to the already existing, but niche and historically expensive slate/tablet platform that is the equivalent of the click wheel and iTunes. Some "a ha!" innovation that will open up the market not just for Apple, but for all the copy-cats, too.
Right. And that is what alot of people keep missing time and time again when they downplay Apple products. They are so focused on the specs and the gadget and not on the experience and integrations.
LOL. Oops. I meant consumer. And I do not agree with #2. The average consumer doesn't even know what torrent means. And the avergae consumer is what made the iPod a success.
That's irrelevant. Yes the iPod is a success. No, it's not because of music sales on iTunes.
Did "torrents" even exist when the iPod started ramping up sales? I know that file sharing services like the old Napster had a hand in putting a lot of music on peoples iPods, as did CD rips, but I'd be surprised if torrents were in broad enough use back then to have had much of an impact on sales.
yeah but we're talking about when and what caused a more rapid increase of music sales on iTunes. It has been happening ever since torrenting took off.
That's irrelevant. Yes the iPod is a success. No, it's not because of music sales on iTunes.
yeah but we're talking about when and what caused a more rapid increase of music sales on iTunes. It has been happening ever since torrenting took off.
OK, I took a look at the two timelines and I stand corrected-- torrents did indeed ramp up just prior to the iPods big run at mass sales. I was thinking that mass torrent use came a little later.
That's irrelevant. Yes the iPod is a success. No, it's not because of music sales on iTunes.
yeah but we're talking about when and what caused a more rapid increase of music sales on iTunes. It has been happening ever since torrenting took off.
What is irrelevant? The average customer? You really want to stick with that story? And now you are saying torrents caused the rapid increase of sales on iTunes? You got any actual market research or numbers to back that up? Nevermind that that is NOT what we are talking about.The sales of the iPod TRIPLED the quarter after the iTunes store opened even beating out the previous Christmas sales. Before that sales fluctuated up and down. Actual numbers back up what I have said.
What is irrelevant? The average customer? You really want to stick with that story? And now you are saying torrents caused the rapid increase of sales on iTunes? You got any actual market research or numbers to back that up? Nevermind that that is NOT what we are talking about.The sales of the iPod TRIPLED the quarter after the iTunes store opened even beating out the previous Christmas sales. Before that sales fluctuated up and down. Actual numbers back up what I have said.
Right. Good old Post Hoc fallacy. Just because torrent and iPod use may have been growing at the same time by no means establishes that the one had anything to do with the other.
I remember seeing my first iPod, it was the one that didnt look like an an eye sore because it didnt have the raised buttons. I didnt get my first one until 05? It was the first year the Nano came out iirc cause i got a 4gb in black for christmas cause i had a Moto Rokr that i had all kinds of modded and broke that 100 song limit Apple imposed until i bricked it and couldnt get it to boot anymore and i only had it for a few months lol.
Anyways the iPod benefited from the huge boom of computers in homes (we didnt get one until like high school cause we got DSL) and piracy. iirc Napster had been shutdown around 03 but Kazaa had taken over and Limewire was the largely unknown p2p client. CD-Rs were still way overpriced at this time as well so burning CDs was illogical but not dead since cars didnt have MP3 playback (so you still kept that case of CDs) or hook ups. All these things culminated to the iPods success.
i dont really know about MP3 players being niche, i was a 7th grader at the time the ipod debuted and there were a few kids rolling around with MP3 players one of whom was my friend who also introduced me to Torrents, i didnt even see my first iPod until halfway in 8th grade (2002) and the time i went to high school in 03 they had blown up.
I remember seeing my first iPod, it was the one that didnt look like an an eye sore because it didnt have the raised buttons. I didnt get my first one until 05? It was the first year the Nano came out iirc cause i got a 4gb in black for christmas cause i had a Moto Rokr that i had all kinds of modded and broke that 100 song limit Apple imposed until i bricked it and couldnt get it to boot anymore and i only had it for a few months lol.
Anyways the iPod benefited from the huge boom of computers in homes (we didnt get one until like high school cause we got DSL) and piracy. iirc Napster had been shutdown around 03 but Kazaa had taken over and Limewire was the largely unknown p2p client. CD-Rs were still way overpriced at this time as well so burning CDs was illogical but not dead since cars didnt have MP3 playback (so you still kept that case of CDs) or hook ups. All these things culminated to the iPods success.
I'm sorry, but citing your personal experience and running through some contemporaneous developments to conclude that "All these things culminated to the iPods success" is backwards reasoning, aka the Post Hoc fallacy.
It's also a variation on the standard "right place, right time" argument that Apple skeptics trot out to explain any successes that company may have, with the implication that Apple just blunders into its good fortune by being slightly ahead of the curve.
If you bring out a product that changes its market, and the entire associated economy of that market, forever, maybe, just maybe, that's "luck." If you do it twice within a few years, all the while growing your computer market share and posting the best profits in the business, maybe there's a really smart, capable strategy at work?
If you have to make convoluted arguments to explain Apple's runaway success with formally fringe segments of the computing industry, in order to establish that any tablet from Apple is destined to fail, I would take that as a sign that there's a problem with your underlying assumptions.
I would also urge anyone still under the thrall of "Courier" to take a good long look at MS's giddy conceptual videos for their Origami UMPC thingee, if only because it's classic MS "just close your eyes and dream with us" marketing. I well remember the cries of the faithful when that bit of whimsy was distributed, about how Apple was about to get slammed by genuine innovation, how MS's deep pockets and vast underground caverns of research bots were bringing the hurt, and how Cupertino was suddenly left looking like yesterday's news. Listening to people talk about MS and Apple is like living in Groundhog's day, except MS and her fans are Bill Murray and they never learn a goddamn thing.
I like the Macalope's take:
Microsoft’s tablet “strategy” is like an Escher painting, full of staircases leading in every direction that all ultimately just go round in circles. The company so badly wants to be Prometheus, bringing fire to the mortals. Instead it’s like some drunk dude flicking matches at us.
There is no real excitement about the "Slate PC" because it is not much new. Microsoft advertised such "slate form factor" devises since years as Ultra-Mobile PCs (UMPC) ... and they didn't sell well at all.
Part of the reason was that they were expensive and clunky and there was no real use-case known for them. The current fuss about tablets is a big different: They are not that expensive since they have to compete with netbooks and smartphones. They finally have a little better design; in particular they are no longer that thick . And you can finally use them with the finger, no need for a stylus.
What is still missing, is the real use-case and how being a full-fledged Windows 7 PC helps with it. They certainly are appealing as a secondary or ternary computer for surfing the web and E-Book reading - so providing bigger screens for that than smartphones and replacing what netbooks were initially designed for before manufacturers starting installing Windows XP on them and selling them as cheap laptops without optical drives. And it's a step ahead if you have dedicated E-Book software on such a device. But browsing the web with a regular Windows browser using a touch screen with no dedicated touch gestures? Not really. Playing regular Windows games? Mostly not interesting if they didn't adapt the controls to a touch screen - just try to play Minesweeper on a touchscreen and you'll see what I mean .... not even starting about first person shooters or flight simulator or anything fancy.
I think, such a devise really needs careful adjustment and Safari on iPhone and the iTunes App Store with tons of E-Book software and games for touch interfaces is a much better direction than just saying "it runs Windows 7" ... but of course, Apps for Cocoa Touch would still needed to be adapted to bigger screens and so on.
I'm actually the opposite! I can't see why you wouldn't want your slate running Windows 7 (or OS X). IMO the worst thing Apple can do is treat their slate as an iPhone with a bigger screen. Having a totally custom UI\\OS works brilliantly for the iPhone\\iPod but it would be limiting for a larger screen device.
If I'm going to be handing over many hundreds of dollars I want a versatile all-in-one device that not only acts as an eBook/portable media device/web & email browser but is also able to replace my netbook, rather than just be another way to consume iTunes content (i.e. like Apple TV).
At the moment I take an iPhone, iPod and a netbook with me so it doesn't matter how pretty Apple's slate is there is just no way it is going to find room in my bag if it can't replace my netbook.
The other alternative if that it never leaves the house and is just a convenient way to read and web browse without having a netbook on my lap which sounds awesome... but not for $500+.