I still don't get the talk of these iPhone Apps running on the tablet. The iPhone interface is designed with the phone, one-hand etc. in mind. This tablet will demand new Apps from the ground up, just for it. And what's more it makes monetary sense for Apple (and for its devs) to demand "new tablet-specific apps" for the Tablet. Wait and you see, there be no mention of iPhone apps running on the tablet.
I see it as being a new product with 100,000+ apps to choose from on day one. Tablet specific apps will come, maybe, but not immediately, not thousands anyway.
There are some apps built for one thumb use, like most included Apps, but many in the App store are not.
AT&T stinks, but Verizon stinks more. So, good luck with that.
I left Sprint shortly after the iPhone was introduced. I just got an invoice from Sprint with a credit of $5.52, but no check. Just goes to show you how good other companies are. Verizon may have the better signal but I have found AT&T to be pretty responsive with any technical/billing issues.
Why must we continue to suffer with the stunning short-sightedness of TV companies? Does any cable giant think cable subscriptions are going to last forever?
The clinging to the business model of 20 years past is, to use someone else's phrase, breathtaking in its inanity.
A third party on CNBC has just tipped that Version has the iPhone.
It's just the natural evolution, Apple has outgrown the one carrier and now needs more.
If the Tablet requires a (another) cell phone contract, it's going to be very painful for a lot of folks to accept. Also locking it to the App Store will put off a lot of traditional computer users used to having control over their machines.
Perhaps that's why the RDF is in full overdrive mode.
Just released this morning!:
Google Voice is now available for iPhone as web based app.
I was with Cingular/AT&T for eight years and I simply got tired of their poor Customer Service. So, I dropped them, went over to Verizon and received their version of the Razr. I was amazed at the horrible software that Verizon uses in their phones. After nearly two years with them, I went back to AT&T and bought an iPhone. Now that a Verizon iPhone seems eminent, I cannot imagine what the software will look like. Although, I'm sure that Verizon will find a way to screw it up.
My experience was very similar.
Verizon has a better network but they insist on hamstringing the devices that use it.
I can?t say I?m surprised, per say, but on the surface they do appear to be making a mistake. I don?t think they get that much per user through a cable company.
Nothing new here; like the Music and Movies Industry, they need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new disposition, and don't expect them to show any gratitude for the reinvention of their market and reincarnation of their fortunes.
Verizon has a better network but they insist on hamstringing the devices that use it.
AT&T is the opposite.
[CENTER]You obviously haven't experienced any of the newer Verizon/Google handsets... They 'hamstring' absolutely nothing, only provide the cellular network.[/CENTER]
...I also don't get how on one hand you can comment previously that over 100,00 apps are "too many" (especially those darn fart apps) and then turn around here and claim that there aren't enough good user choices among that 100,000+.
Never said that, you got me mixed up with someone else.
Quote:
As far as spreading proprietary software via the App Store, you do realize that the App Store has proprietary areas that are limited to corporate or proprietary function only, right?
Good to know thanks, still no method to distribute apps of a trade secret nature though.
Quote:
And finally this device isn't a laptop or even "just" a tablet, it will be a uniquely Apple concept which may in fact not be "geek-worthy". In other words, it'll be cool and attractive to a vast majority consumers, but just not right for us geeks. Sux to be us sometimes, but if we demand full control and minimal interference then we can't expect our little minority to directly impact Apple's plans for a rich, controlled consumer experience.
The problem is as more and more people shift their uses to a closed UI Tablet based upon App Store apps, it lessons the need for open devices from Apple like Mac's.
Microsoft will have a field day with that!
Hopefully Apple will provide a approved "jail break" method to open the Tablet if the user needs too run programs of a high trade secret or specialized nature.
Apple could buy 51% controlling share in Comcast for about half of it's cash hoard and then just make NBC Universal ( 51% owned by Comcast) do the deal...but thats not Apple's style.
The networks that do sign on will just eventually outcompete those that don't into irrelevancy.
But this all depends on the tablet price. If it's CRAZY LOW to the point that Apple start selling 50 million a year then we could see a content revolution starting...
Hopefully Apple will provide a approved "jail break" method to open the Tablet if the user needs too run programs of a high trade secret or specialized nature.
Just buy a dev lic or whatever you gotta to be able to install your own apps and make your own. It's already possible with the OS and I'm sure any variation of the OS wouldn't change that.
They either will ensure the demonstration of wireless connectivity features of new product or will have an event on their own, which's got noting to do with Apple's one.
Why in the world would anyone announce anything on the same day as the tablet? No-one's going to pay attention. Regardless of how people receive the tablet, everyone is going to be talking about it all day. If you wanted to bury bad news, tomorrow would be a great time to release it.
It seems more likely that their event is pure fabrication than VZW PR decided to hold a major event simultaneously with the Apple PR storm.
And I also don't understand the desire/interest in seeing iPhone apps on a tablet. Even if they did work --I don't much care either way-- I want different apps on the tablet. The whole reason I want the thing is because the iPhone apps are great for short, simple sessions - but they're (none of them) really suited to anything involved. I want different interfaces, more complexity. Compatibility with the existing apps is irrelevant.
Why in the world would anyone announce anything on the same day as the tablet? No-one's going to pay attention. Regardless of how people receive the tablet, everyone is going to be talking about it all day. If you wanted to bury bad news, tomorrow would be a great time to release it.
It seems more likely that their event is pure fabrication than VZW PR decided to hold a major event simultaneously with the Apple PR storm.
And I also don't understand the desire/interest in seeing iPhone apps on a tablet. Even if they did work --I don't much care either way-- I want different apps on the tablet. The whole reason I want the thing is because the iPhone apps are great for short, simple sessions - but they're (none of them) really suited to anything involved. I want different interfaces, more complexity. Compatibility with the existing apps is irrelevant.
[CENTER]Because Apple obviously desires to expand its Mobile OS (formerly known as the iPhone OS) into more capable devices with the introduction of the iPAD/Apple Mobile OS 4.0, yet offer a degree of backwards compatibility for those who already own iPOD Touch/iPHONEs.[/CENTER]
Then there was that big row about NBC pulling their content off of iTunes way back.
It's Zuckerman and/or the board of NBC.
Because Netflix is neutral, they were going to buy a studio and thought better of it as it would them in competition with their content suppliers.
The AppleTV and iTunes won't get the neutrality and content from everyone like Netflix does, because Apple/Steve Jobs/Disney/ABC etc.
One can buy a $99 Rokor or use a disk for the PS3 or x-Box to stream unlimited and only pay $8 or $9 a month. Hard to beat that.
David Zucker screwed up but from what I hear he's a decent guy. Dick Ebersol (head of NBC Sports) on the other hand?
I don't see why Steve Jobs being the majority shareholder in Disney should affect anything. It's not like Disney would get a more prominent place in the iTunes store or get higher revenues than the other networks. If the this is the reason, it would be a perceived bias and nothing that is based in reality. There would be binding contracts that wouldn't allow for any bias.
I still don't get the talk of these iPhone Apps running on the tablet. The iPhone interface is designed with the phone, one-hand etc. in mind. This tablet will demand new Apps from the ground up, just for it. And what's more it makes monetary sense for Apple (and for its devs) to demand "new tablet-specific apps" for the Tablet. Wait and you see, there be no mention of iPhone apps running on the tablet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
I see it as being a new product with 100,000+ apps to choose from on day one. Tablet specific apps will come, maybe, but not immediately, not thousands anyway.
There are some apps built for one thumb use, like most included Apps, but many in the App store are not.
This is probably where the excitement and big-sell will come from - many of the vast number of iPhone apps, while being revolutionary utilities as stand-alone programs, will likely have their usefulness, capability and fun factor multiplied by running in a more powerful multi-tasking environment which the Tablet is likely to provide, leading to a new class: App Suites.
Visualise an environment in which 2 or more apps can not only operate simultaneously, but accept input and output to other apps in real time. Surely this would not require a reinvention of the wheel, as these apps already exist, perform familiar functions and would only require a common communication protocol to interoperate.
Think Productivity, Finance & Business (Spreadsheets, WP, Presentation, Dictation, VNC, iDisk, WebEx etc), Books (the obvious - Stanza, iVerse, Classics, various newspapers and magazines etc), Lifestyle and Social Networking (too many to mention), Music (another very interesting group given the BeatMakers, Star Guitars, Synths, Ocarinas, Sequencers and Multi-trackers) and finally Games (I rest my case).
I see some very interesting eco-systems, and possibly a new mobile computing platform developing over the coming years. Gadzooks!
Just buy a dev lic or whatever you gotta to be able to install your own apps and make your own. It's already possible with the OS and I'm sure any variation of the OS wouldn't change that.
I'm talking about a free GUI method, approved, safe and secure, jail break/reverse program for those that need to run apps that are not going to be distributed massively on the App Store without resorting to the developers license and the command line.
Naturally I expect it to come with conditions, like disabling cell phone connections and not running illegal copies of sold apps on the App Store. But it would give users choice if they wanted to opt out of the App Store limitations and control.
Comments
I still don't get the talk of these iPhone Apps running on the tablet. The iPhone interface is designed with the phone, one-hand etc. in mind. This tablet will demand new Apps from the ground up, just for it. And what's more it makes monetary sense for Apple (and for its devs) to demand "new tablet-specific apps" for the Tablet. Wait and you see, there be no mention of iPhone apps running on the tablet.
I see it as being a new product with 100,000+ apps to choose from on day one. Tablet specific apps will come, maybe, but not immediately, not thousands anyway.
There are some apps built for one thumb use, like most included Apps, but many in the App store are not.
AT&T stinks, but Verizon stinks more. So, good luck with that.
I left Sprint shortly after the iPhone was introduced. I just got an invoice from Sprint with a credit of $5.52, but no check. Just goes to show you how good other companies are. Verizon may have the better signal but I have found AT&T to be pretty responsive with any technical/billing issues.
The clinging to the business model of 20 years past is, to use someone else's phrase, breathtaking in its inanity.
...the Comcast/NBC Universal deal should have never been allowed to go through. NBC can't even get the Tonight Show right.
Then there was that big row about NBC pulling their content off of iTunes way back.
It's Zuckerman and/or the board of NBC.
BTW, why is there no mention of Apple going after a Netflix model for movies?
Because Netflix is neutral, they were going to buy a studio and thought better of it as it would them in competition with their content suppliers.
The AppleTV and iTunes won't get the neutrality and content from everyone like Netflix does, because Apple/Steve Jobs/Disney/ABC etc.
One can buy a $99 Rokor or use a disk for the PS3 or x-Box to stream unlimited and only pay $8 or $9 a month. Hard to beat that.
A third party on CNBC has just tipped that Version has the iPhone.
It's just the natural evolution, Apple has outgrown the one carrier and now needs more.
If the Tablet requires a (another) cell phone contract, it's going to be very painful for a lot of folks to accept. Also locking it to the App Store will put off a lot of traditional computer users used to having control over their machines.
Perhaps that's why the RDF is in full overdrive mode.
Just released this morning!:
Google Voice is now available for iPhone as web based app.
Scroll to bottom for link.
http://www.google.com/mobile/voice/
boygeniusreport ran a story yesterday that VZW warned stores of a big event on Wednesday. Out of norm of the normal 1Q launch of new devices
I was with Cingular/AT&T for eight years and I simply got tired of their poor Customer Service. So, I dropped them, went over to Verizon and received their version of the Razr. I was amazed at the horrible software that Verizon uses in their phones. After nearly two years with them, I went back to AT&T and bought an iPhone. Now that a Verizon iPhone seems eminent, I cannot imagine what the software will look like. Although, I'm sure that Verizon will find a way to screw it up.
My experience was very similar.
Verizon has a better network but they insist on hamstringing the devices that use it.
AT&T is the opposite.
I can?t say I?m surprised, per say, but on the surface they do appear to be making a mistake. I don?t think they get that much per user through a cable company.
Nothing new here; like the Music and Movies Industry, they need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new disposition, and don't expect them to show any gratitude for the reinvention of their market and reincarnation of their fortunes.
Living relics, that's what they are...
My experience was very similar.
Verizon has a better network but they insist on hamstringing the devices that use it.
AT&T is the opposite.
[CENTER]You obviously haven't experienced any of the newer Verizon/Google handsets... They 'hamstring' absolutely nothing, only provide the cellular network.[/CENTER]
I sure hope the tablet is easy to clean because half of you are going to get jizz on it.
Good job Joe. Way to give Miami a good name. And yes I'm sure it will come with one of those dusting clothes like the iP Touch or a new flat screen.
- Verizon is slower (3.1Mb versus 3.4Mb/7.2Mb)
- Verizon can not support concurrent voice/data (deal breaker for me)
- Verizon does not have any rollover minutes
- Verizon does not offer any free wifi hostspots
- Verizon, once again, will take a good phone and reduce the potential BW from 7.2Mb to their crappy CDMA at 3.1Mb.
Go folks....more bandwidth for the rest of us....I also don't get how on one hand you can comment previously that over 100,00 apps are "too many" (especially those darn fart apps) and then turn around here and claim that there aren't enough good user choices among that 100,000+.
Never said that, you got me mixed up with someone else.
As far as spreading proprietary software via the App Store, you do realize that the App Store has proprietary areas that are limited to corporate or proprietary function only, right?
Good to know thanks, still no method to distribute apps of a trade secret nature though.
And finally this device isn't a laptop or even "just" a tablet, it will be a uniquely Apple concept which may in fact not be "geek-worthy". In other words, it'll be cool and attractive to a vast majority consumers, but just not right for us geeks. Sux to be us sometimes, but if we demand full control and minimal interference then we can't expect our little minority to directly impact Apple's plans for a rich, controlled consumer experience.
The problem is as more and more people shift their uses to a closed UI Tablet based upon App Store apps, it lessons the need for open devices from Apple like Mac's.
Microsoft will have a field day with that!
Hopefully Apple will provide a approved "jail break" method to open the Tablet if the user needs too run programs of a high trade secret or specialized nature.
The networks that do sign on will just eventually outcompete those that don't into irrelevancy.
But this all depends on the tablet price. If it's CRAZY LOW to the point that Apple start selling 50 million a year then we could see a content revolution starting...
I bet the Apple TV APP is on this tablet.
AT&T stinks, but Verizon stinks more. So, good luck with that.
Not from my experience. I've had both. Verizon wins...hands down.
Hopefully Apple will provide a approved "jail break" method to open the Tablet if the user needs too run programs of a high trade secret or specialized nature.
Just buy a dev lic or whatever you gotta to be able to install your own apps and make your own. It's already possible with the OS and I'm sure any variation of the OS wouldn't change that.
...why would I go to Verizon and experience their growth pains over the next few years....especially when:
- Verizon is slower (3.1Mb versus 3.4Mb/7.2Mb)
- Verizon can not support concurrent voice/data (deal breaker for me)
- Verizon does not have any rollover minutes
- Verizon does not offer any free wifi hostspots
- Verizon, once again, will take a good phone and reduce the potential BW from 7.2Mb to their crappy CDMA at 3.1Mb.
Go folks....more bandwidth for the rest of us.I think the issue at hand is choice and competition, and that's good for everyone, even those who remain on AT&T.
They either will ensure the demonstration of wireless connectivity features of new product or will have an event on their own, which's got noting to do with Apple's one.
Why in the world would anyone announce anything on the same day as the tablet? No-one's going to pay attention. Regardless of how people receive the tablet, everyone is going to be talking about it all day. If you wanted to bury bad news, tomorrow would be a great time to release it.
It seems more likely that their event is pure fabrication than VZW PR decided to hold a major event simultaneously with the Apple PR storm.
And I also don't understand the desire/interest in seeing iPhone apps on a tablet. Even if they did work --I don't much care either way-- I want different apps on the tablet. The whole reason I want the thing is because the iPhone apps are great for short, simple sessions - but they're (none of them) really suited to anything involved. I want different interfaces, more complexity. Compatibility with the existing apps is irrelevant.
Why in the world would anyone announce anything on the same day as the tablet? No-one's going to pay attention. Regardless of how people receive the tablet, everyone is going to be talking about it all day. If you wanted to bury bad news, tomorrow would be a great time to release it.
It seems more likely that their event is pure fabrication than VZW PR decided to hold a major event simultaneously with the Apple PR storm.
And I also don't understand the desire/interest in seeing iPhone apps on a tablet. Even if they did work --I don't much care either way-- I want different apps on the tablet. The whole reason I want the thing is because the iPhone apps are great for short, simple sessions - but they're (none of them) really suited to anything involved. I want different interfaces, more complexity. Compatibility with the existing apps is irrelevant.
[CENTER]Because Apple obviously desires to expand its Mobile OS (formerly known as the iPhone OS) into more capable devices with the introduction of the iPAD/Apple Mobile OS 4.0, yet offer a degree of backwards compatibility for those who already own iPOD Touch/iPHONEs.[/CENTER]
Then there was that big row about NBC pulling their content off of iTunes way back.
It's Zuckerman and/or the board of NBC.
Because Netflix is neutral, they were going to buy a studio and thought better of it as it would them in competition with their content suppliers.
The AppleTV and iTunes won't get the neutrality and content from everyone like Netflix does, because Apple/Steve Jobs/Disney/ABC etc.
One can buy a $99 Rokor or use a disk for the PS3 or x-Box to stream unlimited and only pay $8 or $9 a month. Hard to beat that.
David Zucker screwed up but from what I hear he's a decent guy. Dick Ebersol (head of NBC Sports) on the other hand?
I don't see why Steve Jobs being the majority shareholder in Disney should affect anything. It's not like Disney would get a more prominent place in the iTunes store or get higher revenues than the other networks. If the this is the reason, it would be a perceived bias and nothing that is based in reality. There would be binding contracts that wouldn't allow for any bias.
Originally Posted by Ireland
I still don't get the talk of these iPhone Apps running on the tablet. The iPhone interface is designed with the phone, one-hand etc. in mind. This tablet will demand new Apps from the ground up, just for it. And what's more it makes monetary sense for Apple (and for its devs) to demand "new tablet-specific apps" for the Tablet. Wait and you see, there be no mention of iPhone apps running on the tablet.
I see it as being a new product with 100,000+ apps to choose from on day one. Tablet specific apps will come, maybe, but not immediately, not thousands anyway.
There are some apps built for one thumb use, like most included Apps, but many in the App store are not.
This is probably where the excitement and big-sell will come from - many of the vast number of iPhone apps, while being revolutionary utilities as stand-alone programs, will likely have their usefulness, capability and fun factor multiplied by running in a more powerful multi-tasking environment which the Tablet is likely to provide, leading to a new class: App Suites.
Visualise an environment in which 2 or more apps can not only operate simultaneously, but accept input and output to other apps in real time. Surely this would not require a reinvention of the wheel, as these apps already exist, perform familiar functions and would only require a common communication protocol to interoperate.
Think Productivity, Finance & Business (Spreadsheets, WP, Presentation, Dictation, VNC, iDisk, WebEx etc), Books (the obvious - Stanza, iVerse, Classics, various newspapers and magazines etc), Lifestyle and Social Networking (too many to mention), Music (another very interesting group given the BeatMakers, Star Guitars, Synths, Ocarinas, Sequencers and Multi-trackers) and finally Games (I rest my case).
I see some very interesting eco-systems, and possibly a new mobile computing platform developing over the coming years. Gadzooks!
Just buy a dev lic or whatever you gotta to be able to install your own apps and make your own. It's already possible with the OS and I'm sure any variation of the OS wouldn't change that.
I'm talking about a free GUI method, approved, safe and secure, jail break/reverse program for those that need to run apps that are not going to be distributed massively on the App Store without resorting to the developers license and the command line.
Naturally I expect it to come with conditions, like disabling cell phone connections and not running illegal copies of sold apps on the App Store. But it would give users choice if they wanted to opt out of the App Store limitations and control.