It's not the size. It's the function of the device. If all that's going to be allowed are apps that are allowed on the iPhone or productivity suites that are on par with iPhone tools, then the iPad will be less of a computer and more of an oversized iPod Touch. I have no problem with that. But let's not pretend this is an amazing platform if that's all that's coming to market.
But that is the point, even if its an oversized iPod touch (size only), it is an amazing platform precisely because it'll have access to thousands of newly-created apps that take advantage of multitouch on that big screen (instead of the iPhone/iPod Touch size screen). Joe Hewitt just wrote about this on the link I provided in this thread earlier. It's precisely the additional real estate (as well as new multitouch gestures) that will make for many more tools. So when you boil it down, it is the size which leads to more function. The iBook Store and iWork exists for the iPad and not the iPhone precisely because of its size.
Quote:
The company that wanted to give you one device in your pocket (instead of an iPod and a phone) now wants you to have two in your briefcase (iPad and Macbook).
Let's divide the market into two. Those who already have a computer (Windows, Mac, Linux), and those who don't. For those who already have a computer (desktop or laptop, doesn't matter), many were looking for a smaller laptop, thus the excitement over netbooks. Apple wants to sell you an iPad instead because most didn't want the smaller laptop to do everything that their other computer could do anyway.
For those who don't, Apple wants to sell you an iPad as something that is simple enough and maintenance-free enough that you will think of it as an appliance and just use it. But the model here is incomplete, as the iPad so far has only been shown to sync to a computer. So it's my belief, Apple will soon allow syncing to its MobileMe cloud or a revamped TimeCapsule-like or AppleTV product.
In either case, Apple also expects that you'll have a cellphone, and Apple wants to sell you an iPhone as your next upgrade. So in Apple's eyes, you'll have an iPhone and an iPad. Or an iPhone and an iPad and a computer (preferably a Mac).
Meh. Unfortunately, statements like that tend to drive the fanboyism to rabid levels. I just get annoyed with misleading statements.
I love my Mac. But increasingly, I am disappointed that my fellow Mac fans seem to give Apple and Steve a pass when they say or do something less than par. You know if Gates or Ballmer had made a statement like that, people on here would have been all over it, about how it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Why can't Jobs be held to the same standard?
Why is it not an apples-to-apples comparison?
Are you just trying to say there's an issue because Jobs redefined what mobile devices are? Jobs specifically qualified his statement by saying he was including laptops and only discussing revenue. He didn't try to fool anyone.
I agree that there is a concern. Although it's like an appliance, it will be taking a spot that used to be occupied partially by many things including a computer, so those expectations might linger. But once again, it turns on how Apple handles the App Store. So rather than get all worked up now, I'm willing to wait and see how that goes. If Apple gets too restrictive, and users become unhappy, I would predict that sales would start to slow, and Apple would be wise enough to plot a new course.
I am disappointed because I am more pessimistic than you. I just don't see it happening. I really believe that the only reason flash isn't on the idevices is because Apple does not want a competitive threat to its app store. Who would download games from the app store if Farmville is a click away? Or TV shows from iTunes, if you could just go to NBC instead?
That's why these restrictions concern me. And I don't think Apple will adjust course (at least as long as Jobs is in power). They'll keep the restrictions on. And hope that more sites develop without Flash. Or that users will just accept being able to use only the browser that's provided. I wish the networks would call Apple's bluff and build up websites that are fully compatible with the iPhone and allow users to get all the TV shows while bypassing iTunes. At the end of the day, we know that however locked the device is, it'll sell a million or two easily in a year. That's why Apple won't really care. And sadly, that really cripples some of the potential of the device....guess I may not be able to ditch that old laptop after all! I just play Mafia Wars too much!
Let's divide the market into two. Those who already have a computer (Windows, Mac, Linux), and those who don't. For those who already have a computer (desktop or laptop, doesn't matter), many were looking for a smaller laptop, thus the excitement over netbooks. Apple wants to sell you an iPad instead because most didn't want the smaller laptop to do everything that their other computer could do anyway.
For those who don't, Apple wants to sell you an iPad as something that is simple enough and maintenance-free enough that you will think of it as an appliance and just use it. But the model here is incomplete, as the iPad so far has only been shown to sync to a computer. So it's my belief, Apple will soon allow syncing to its MobileMe cloud or a revamped TimeCapsule-like or AppleTV product.
In either case, Apple also expects that you'll have a cellphone, and Apple wants to sell you an iPhone as your next upgrade. So in Apple's eyes, you'll have an iPhone and an iPad. Or an iPhone and an iPad and a computer (preferably a Mac).
Interesting take. And I agree that they are trying to use the iPad to lower the barrier of entry into the Apple ecosystem while hooking you in so that you buy entirely into the ecosystem. It'll be interesting to see if it works. Though I do think we are far more likely to see these combinations: iphone/iPad/Windows PC or iPhone/iPad/MacBook.
I do appreciate the iPad for what it is: a really awesome media consumption device. Which for most of the population these days, is a fairly satisfactory replacement for a computer.
Hello there, If you browse a lot facebook games it will indeed be a problem.
i will not be shocked to have ipad versions of those games ready by release time. linking into your facebook account so you can flip back and forth as you wish.
in fact, unless they cut it recently the CS5 beta had a flash to iphone app convertor. so these companies get their hands on the betas and in a day they would have their app, and Apple is going to be pushing to get as many ipad native apps and upgrades ready for the launch as they can. they probably doubled staff to push approvals and are doing everything they can to encourage developers to update rather than be happy with black box and such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
There is way too much complaining about what the iPad cannot do.
keeping in mind that no one has touched one. Why not wait until you actually hold one to talk about what it can and can't do and is it good enough for you or not.
Well... I'm one of those 75 mils and gess what - I'm not that happy with missing flash. So is my wife - can't play Facebook games on her iPhone. A colleague of mine would like flash as well, got very excited with perspective (probably false) that iPhone OS4 will support flash.
I could continue about most of the people I know having iPhone, but you should have got my point so far. 75 million users doesn't by default mean 75 million fully satisfied users. There is always space for improvement, and there is always danger competition will improve faster.
So why did I got iPhone at all? Well, when I was looking for new phone (September 2009) my estimate was that iPhone was the best overall device for me. Lack of Flash was minus, but Stanza, decent email client, well executed chat and address book sold it to me. At the end, screen size limitation is making iPhone browsing matter of necessity, not first choice. When I browse on iPhone, it is usually quick search for some text information, be it Wiki or any other source. If I want to browse for "experience" (look for house to buy or rent, check review of new car...) I'll use computer as, even without Flash on web pages, iPhone screen is too small for real web experience.
Thus lack of Flash is minus, but considering way I browse on iPhone, it is not that big.
But... iPad screen is big enough for full experience browsing. Big enough to show most web pages without resizing, zooming in an out... so I can see myself doing most of my browsing on device like iPad. Since I would browse on iPad not only for information, but also for experience, I feel that lack of Flash would be much more noticeable - and much more annoying, for me.
Nobody is going to give an iPod Touch or an iPhone to an 8 or even a 10 year old.
Umm, it's already happening. Search for it in Google and you'll find stories in multiple newspapers and magazines about iPod Touch being given to even 5 year olds. I should add that my 10 year old is waiting for his iPod touch (at least, I'm making him wait for the one with the camera.) He's already asked me to sell all his DS games so he can use the money to buy more App Store games.
By the way, Apple sold about 17m iPod touch units worldwide over the last 9 months of 2009. Nintendo sold about 23.5m units of both DS Lite and DSi worldwide over the same time period.
I am disappointed because I am more pessimistic than you. I just don't see it happening. I really believe that the only reason flash isn't on the idevices is because Apple does not want a competitive threat to its app store. Who would download games from the app store if Farmville is a click away? Or TV shows from iTunes, if you could just go to NBC instead?
Oops. I've already accepted that Flash will never come to iPad or iPhone for whatever reason.
So read my earlier post as having already excluded Flash.
Umm, it's already happening. Search for it in Google and you'll find stories in multiple newspapers and magazines about iPod Touch being given to even 5 year olds.
My neighbor's kid is 5 and he's got an iPod Touch and loves it.
Umm, it's already happening. Search for it in Google and you'll find stories in multiple newspapers and magazines about iPod Touch being given to even 5 year olds. I should add that my 10 year old is waiting for his iPod touch (at least, I'm making him wait for the one with the camera.) He's already asked me to sell all his DS games so he can use the money to buy more App Store games.
By the way, Apple sold about 17m iPod touch units worldwide over the last 9 months of 2009. Nintendo sold about 23.5m units of both DS Lite and DSi worldwide over the same time period.
One other thing I just looked up: The iPod touch began sales in Sep 2007. In its first 27 months (thru 12-09), it sold 33m units worldwide. The DS family (DS, DS Lite, DSi) began sales in Nov 2004. In its first 26 months, it sold 35m units worldwide. So the sales trajectories are very similar.
If you allow for the iPhone, Apple is way ahead - 75m in 30 months (vs. 40m for DS).
I am disappointed because I am more pessimistic than you. I just don't see it happening. I really believe that the only reason flash isn't on the idevices is because Apple does not want a competitive threat to its app store. Who would download games from the app store if Farmville is a click away? Or TV shows from iTunes, if you could just go to NBC instead?
I think you're off base here, and not just by a little bit. For at least two reasons.
Firstly, the App store and the iBook store, as extensions of iTMS, exist to help Apple sell hardware. That's their business model, and it's little if any different from how they sell computers. Mac OSX exists to sell Macs. iWork and iLife exist to sell Macs. Do you really believe that the $79 price tag on iLife and iWork covers development and maintenance costs plus Apple's famous 30 something percent margin?
It's no different on the mobile side. Apple maintains that they operate iTMS at slightly above break even. This question was again asked and answered at the earnings conference call last Monday. Check it out for yourself. Most of the revenues from iTMS go to the content providers. Apple's take is enough to cover their infrastructure and give them a small profit for their effort. The main point, from Apples's perspective, is to maintain an ecosystem that adds perceived value to iPods, iPhones, and now the iPad.
There are other benefits as well, such as enabling Apple to better control the user experience by not allowing apps that would degrade performance or create security risks, etc, but this is an aside to your theory regarding Flash.
Think about this, if Apple's primary intent was to make money from iTMS, why then were they so resistant to allowing the music companies to raise the price of music downloads? Apple wants as much content as they can get, and they want it to be affordable. They even promote free apps on the app store. Why? To sell more iPhones and iPod Touches, that's why.
The second point is your forced correlation of Flash with free content. In reality, there is none. Flash can be used to stream video content for fee just as easily as it can be used to stream video content for free. I have no doubt that there is plenty of Flash content being delivered for profit. The other side of the coin is that Flash is not required to stream video at all. Microsoft has streaming technology and Real probably does as well (if they're still in business). Neither of these solutions likely work with iPhone OS, but Quicktime server sure does. You can license QT server and stream free video to your heart's content.
I'm sure Apple will be more than happy to sell you an iPhone, iPod Touch, and soon, an iPad, for you to do nothing but surf free sites with. They make their money selling hardware.
You dont sell a product with the tag name "The Best Web Browsing Experience Available" .....
And you would get the Moron of the Year award if you buy nonsense like that. I am sure you didn't buy the tag line. So, would other smart people buy it, and if so, why?
That may be, or not, but it's a rather useless point.
You can't question SJ's conclusion based on the specific assumption he made. Given his assumption, he is exactly right in what he said. That's the fact. Get over it. Move along (I can't understand why you're so incapable of it).
I am disappointed because I am more pessimistic than you. I just don't see it happening. I really believe that the only reason flash isn't on the idevices is because Apple does not want a competitive threat to its app store. Who would download games from the app store if Farmville is a click away? Or TV shows from iTunes, if you could just go to NBC instead?
..so until I see the Kindle and other ebook readers available for the iPad...
Um, they stated multiple times your iPhone apps will sync right over and be useable from day 1.
Are you implying they will block the existing Kindle iPhone app from syncing to the iPad, or is this just more "Apple is evil" speculation that never comes to fruit?
Show me some site and statistics on this one PLEASE cause im calling you full of it.
I don't have to - multiple leading video sites were linked in this thread. If you look around HTML5 is buzzing all over the place. Flash's days are numbered. It's already irrelevant to my browsing experience on my MBP - I rarely whitelist or authorize a flash app to run.
Quote:
Really, because it wasnt until recently i think that Apple made it so your music can be DRM free and not tethered to only iTunes. But good way to throw something in there i wasnt really talking about.
Music sold from iTunes - until recently when Apple was able to convince the record companies to drop DRM - did have DRM. But the first 50 gigs of music I put on my iPod came from CD's and MP3's I had. I didn't buy my first iTunes track for almost a year after I had my first iPod and was using it successfully.
And you were talking about it because you were making these typically unfounded claims about Apple being "closed"...
Quote:
I wonder if it will be for free, because i sure as hell doubt Apple's will be.
Maybe, maybe not. They have also acquired their own mobile ad network company as well.
Quote:
Streaming/buying paid content from a provider and being able to get the SAME CONTENT FOR FREE from some website online is what can hurt Apple
Not if the paid streaming is reasonable and ad free. You may be willing to tolerate ads for free, but if there is a reasonably priced streaming option that's ad free, I'll happily pay to be ad free. There's lots of room in here. And netflix is available in non-silverlight streams - there is nothing to say that the current free guys that rely on flash or silverlight couldn't offer something else if it was worth it to them. It's just software...
Quote:
(Apple has the most to lose unlike Palm/RIM/Android with no established media stores).
Again, you are assuming Apple's media sales are key to it's bottom line. While they are there, they aren't as key to Apple as they are to, say, Amazon with the Kindle.
Quote:
Remember Flash goes beyond just music and videos but also into apps and games...and that conveniently steps right on Apples toes yet again
Not really. Apps and games that were flash only have somehow managed to make their way onto the iPhone (look at the flurry of activity from the likes of PopCap). Flash is no longer the 200lb gorilla of the internet. Add 10 million iPads and things will be dire indeed for Flash.
Quote:
Yeah, it renders it moot...in 10 years.
Hang on to that dream - HTML5 is going to be a whirl-wind adoption that will make CSS look like a fad
Quote:
How about we get a standard out that consumers can AND DO use today and implement for tomorrow at the same time? That to me seems like a common sense standpoint no?
You're also assuming that Flash/Silverlight will literally be standing still for the next 10 years, neither of us know so dont even dare try to act like you do.
Your assuming it will matter that they will not be standing still. I won't care because I won't be using them
Microsoft was able to steamroll over earlier browser vendors with pure market dominance and their muddying of the waters and Internet standards allowed Flash to step into the void. That's no longer the case.
That's a rather useless comparison. Apple is getting the profits of both the hardware and software from a sale. MS only gets the software profits.
Sounds like a flawed model for the long term, no?
Quote:
If you want to add up both the hardware and software profits from all Windows laptops, that'd be a much fairer comparison.
How so? Microsoft doesn't see that hardware revenue.
Quote:
And then I think the numbers would show a fairly different picture.
Yup, an inaccurate one!
Quote:
There's no doubt Apple is a huge player in mobile devices. I am not disputing that. I don't take issue with cherry-picking stats to suit their marketing. How convenient for Jobs to compare all mobile devices that Apple sells to a company that pretty much sells only mobile phones or one that sells only gaming devices. If Nokia started selling music players and laptops, it'd be a fair revenue comparison.
As others pointed out, Nokia does sell laptops. It won't matter, by this time next year Apple will surpass Nokia in revenue with just the iPhone/iPad. Notice I said revenue - you can focus on market share if you like, but hi marketshare/low profit devices don't bring in the revenue and in more ways than one.
Comments
It's not the size. It's the function of the device. If all that's going to be allowed are apps that are allowed on the iPhone or productivity suites that are on par with iPhone tools, then the iPad will be less of a computer and more of an oversized iPod Touch. I have no problem with that. But let's not pretend this is an amazing platform if that's all that's coming to market.
But that is the point, even if its an oversized iPod touch (size only), it is an amazing platform precisely because it'll have access to thousands of newly-created apps that take advantage of multitouch on that big screen (instead of the iPhone/iPod Touch size screen). Joe Hewitt just wrote about this on the link I provided in this thread earlier. It's precisely the additional real estate (as well as new multitouch gestures) that will make for many more tools. So when you boil it down, it is the size which leads to more function. The iBook Store and iWork exists for the iPad and not the iPhone precisely because of its size.
The company that wanted to give you one device in your pocket (instead of an iPod and a phone) now wants you to have two in your briefcase (iPad and Macbook).
Let's divide the market into two. Those who already have a computer (Windows, Mac, Linux), and those who don't. For those who already have a computer (desktop or laptop, doesn't matter), many were looking for a smaller laptop, thus the excitement over netbooks. Apple wants to sell you an iPad instead because most didn't want the smaller laptop to do everything that their other computer could do anyway.
For those who don't, Apple wants to sell you an iPad as something that is simple enough and maintenance-free enough that you will think of it as an appliance and just use it. But the model here is incomplete, as the iPad so far has only been shown to sync to a computer. So it's my belief, Apple will soon allow syncing to its MobileMe cloud or a revamped TimeCapsule-like or AppleTV product.
In either case, Apple also expects that you'll have a cellphone, and Apple wants to sell you an iPhone as your next upgrade. So in Apple's eyes, you'll have an iPhone and an iPad. Or an iPhone and an iPad and a computer (preferably a Mac).
Meh. Unfortunately, statements like that tend to drive the fanboyism to rabid levels. I just get annoyed with misleading statements.
I love my Mac. But increasingly, I am disappointed that my fellow Mac fans seem to give Apple and Steve a pass when they say or do something less than par. You know if Gates or Ballmer had made a statement like that, people on here would have been all over it, about how it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Why can't Jobs be held to the same standard?
Why is it not an apples-to-apples comparison?
Are you just trying to say there's an issue because Jobs redefined what mobile devices are? Jobs specifically qualified his statement by saying he was including laptops and only discussing revenue. He didn't try to fool anyone.
I agree that there is a concern. Although it's like an appliance, it will be taking a spot that used to be occupied partially by many things including a computer, so those expectations might linger. But once again, it turns on how Apple handles the App Store. So rather than get all worked up now, I'm willing to wait and see how that goes. If Apple gets too restrictive, and users become unhappy, I would predict that sales would start to slow, and Apple would be wise enough to plot a new course.
I am disappointed because I am more pessimistic than you. I just don't see it happening. I really believe that the only reason flash isn't on the idevices is because Apple does not want a competitive threat to its app store. Who would download games from the app store if Farmville is a click away? Or TV shows from iTunes, if you could just go to NBC instead?
That's why these restrictions concern me. And I don't think Apple will adjust course (at least as long as Jobs is in power). They'll keep the restrictions on. And hope that more sites develop without Flash. Or that users will just accept being able to use only the browser that's provided. I wish the networks would call Apple's bluff and build up websites that are fully compatible with the iPhone and allow users to get all the TV shows while bypassing iTunes. At the end of the day, we know that however locked the device is, it'll sell a million or two easily in a year. That's why Apple won't really care. And sadly, that really cripples some of the potential of the device....guess I may not be able to ditch that old laptop after all! I just play Mafia Wars too much!
Let's divide the market into two. Those who already have a computer (Windows, Mac, Linux), and those who don't. For those who already have a computer (desktop or laptop, doesn't matter), many were looking for a smaller laptop, thus the excitement over netbooks. Apple wants to sell you an iPad instead because most didn't want the smaller laptop to do everything that their other computer could do anyway.
For those who don't, Apple wants to sell you an iPad as something that is simple enough and maintenance-free enough that you will think of it as an appliance and just use it. But the model here is incomplete, as the iPad so far has only been shown to sync to a computer. So it's my belief, Apple will soon allow syncing to its MobileMe cloud or a revamped TimeCapsule-like or AppleTV product.
In either case, Apple also expects that you'll have a cellphone, and Apple wants to sell you an iPhone as your next upgrade. So in Apple's eyes, you'll have an iPhone and an iPad. Or an iPhone and an iPad and a computer (preferably a Mac).
Interesting take. And I agree that they are trying to use the iPad to lower the barrier of entry into the Apple ecosystem while hooking you in so that you buy entirely into the ecosystem. It'll be interesting to see if it works. Though I do think we are far more likely to see these combinations: iphone/iPad/Windows PC or iPhone/iPad/MacBook.
I do appreciate the iPad for what it is: a really awesome media consumption device. Which for most of the population these days, is a fairly satisfactory replacement for a computer.
Hello there, If you browse a lot facebook games it will indeed be a problem.
i will not be shocked to have ipad versions of those games ready by release time. linking into your facebook account so you can flip back and forth as you wish.
in fact, unless they cut it recently the CS5 beta had a flash to iphone app convertor. so these companies get their hands on the betas and in a day they would have their app, and Apple is going to be pushing to get as many ipad native apps and upgrades ready for the launch as they can. they probably doubled staff to push approvals and are doing everything they can to encourage developers to update rather than be happy with black box and such.
There is way too much complaining about what the iPad cannot do.
keeping in mind that no one has touched one. Why not wait until you actually hold one to talk about what it can and can't do and is it good enough for you or not.
Well... I'm one of those 75 mils and gess what - I'm not that happy with missing flash. So is my wife - can't play Facebook games on her iPhone. A colleague of mine would like flash as well, got very excited with perspective (probably false) that iPhone OS4 will support flash.
I could continue about most of the people I know having iPhone, but you should have got my point so far. 75 million users doesn't by default mean 75 million fully satisfied users. There is always space for improvement, and there is always danger competition will improve faster.
So why did I got iPhone at all? Well, when I was looking for new phone (September 2009) my estimate was that iPhone was the best overall device for me. Lack of Flash was minus, but Stanza, decent email client, well executed chat and address book sold it to me. At the end, screen size limitation is making iPhone browsing matter of necessity, not first choice. When I browse on iPhone, it is usually quick search for some text information, be it Wiki or any other source. If I want to browse for "experience" (look for house to buy or rent, check review of new car...) I'll use computer as, even without Flash on web pages, iPhone screen is too small for real web experience.
Thus lack of Flash is minus, but considering way I browse on iPhone, it is not that big.
But... iPad screen is big enough for full experience browsing. Big enough to show most web pages without resizing, zooming in an out... so I can see myself doing most of my browsing on device like iPad. Since I would browse on iPad not only for information, but also for experience, I feel that lack of Flash would be much more noticeable - and much more annoying, for me.
fuck flash
Nobody is going to give an iPod Touch or an iPhone to an 8 or even a 10 year old.
Umm, it's already happening. Search for it in Google and you'll find stories in multiple newspapers and magazines about iPod Touch being given to even 5 year olds. I should add that my 10 year old is waiting for his iPod touch (at least, I'm making him wait for the one with the camera.) He's already asked me to sell all his DS games so he can use the money to buy more App Store games.
By the way, Apple sold about 17m iPod touch units worldwide over the last 9 months of 2009. Nintendo sold about 23.5m units of both DS Lite and DSi worldwide over the same time period.
I am disappointed because I am more pessimistic than you. I just don't see it happening. I really believe that the only reason flash isn't on the idevices is because Apple does not want a competitive threat to its app store. Who would download games from the app store if Farmville is a click away? Or TV shows from iTunes, if you could just go to NBC instead?
Oops. I've already accepted that Flash will never come to iPad or iPhone for whatever reason.
So read my earlier post as having already excluded Flash.
Umm, it's already happening. Search for it in Google and you'll find stories in multiple newspapers and magazines about iPod Touch being given to even 5 year olds.
My neighbor's kid is 5 and he's got an iPod Touch and loves it.
Umm, it's already happening. Search for it in Google and you'll find stories in multiple newspapers and magazines about iPod Touch being given to even 5 year olds. I should add that my 10 year old is waiting for his iPod touch (at least, I'm making him wait for the one with the camera.) He's already asked me to sell all his DS games so he can use the money to buy more App Store games.
By the way, Apple sold about 17m iPod touch units worldwide over the last 9 months of 2009. Nintendo sold about 23.5m units of both DS Lite and DSi worldwide over the same time period.
One other thing I just looked up: The iPod touch began sales in Sep 2007. In its first 27 months (thru 12-09), it sold 33m units worldwide. The DS family (DS, DS Lite, DSi) began sales in Nov 2004. In its first 26 months, it sold 35m units worldwide. So the sales trajectories are very similar.
If you allow for the iPhone, Apple is way ahead - 75m in 30 months (vs. 40m for DS).
I am disappointed because I am more pessimistic than you. I just don't see it happening. I really believe that the only reason flash isn't on the idevices is because Apple does not want a competitive threat to its app store. Who would download games from the app store if Farmville is a click away? Or TV shows from iTunes, if you could just go to NBC instead?
I think you're off base here, and not just by a little bit. For at least two reasons.
Firstly, the App store and the iBook store, as extensions of iTMS, exist to help Apple sell hardware. That's their business model, and it's little if any different from how they sell computers. Mac OSX exists to sell Macs. iWork and iLife exist to sell Macs. Do you really believe that the $79 price tag on iLife and iWork covers development and maintenance costs plus Apple's famous 30 something percent margin?
It's no different on the mobile side. Apple maintains that they operate iTMS at slightly above break even. This question was again asked and answered at the earnings conference call last Monday. Check it out for yourself. Most of the revenues from iTMS go to the content providers. Apple's take is enough to cover their infrastructure and give them a small profit for their effort. The main point, from Apples's perspective, is to maintain an ecosystem that adds perceived value to iPods, iPhones, and now the iPad.
There are other benefits as well, such as enabling Apple to better control the user experience by not allowing apps that would degrade performance or create security risks, etc, but this is an aside to your theory regarding Flash.
Think about this, if Apple's primary intent was to make money from iTMS, why then were they so resistant to allowing the music companies to raise the price of music downloads? Apple wants as much content as they can get, and they want it to be affordable. They even promote free apps on the app store. Why? To sell more iPhones and iPod Touches, that's why.
The second point is your forced correlation of Flash with free content. In reality, there is none. Flash can be used to stream video content for fee just as easily as it can be used to stream video content for free. I have no doubt that there is plenty of Flash content being delivered for profit. The other side of the coin is that Flash is not required to stream video at all. Microsoft has streaming technology and Real probably does as well (if they're still in business). Neither of these solutions likely work with iPhone OS, but Quicktime server sure does. You can license QT server and stream free video to your heart's content.
I'm sure Apple will be more than happy to sell you an iPhone, iPod Touch, and soon, an iPad, for you to do nothing but surf free sites with. They make their money selling hardware.
You Macheads really are passionate defenders of the faith aren't you?
Yes, we are. Do you have a point?
You dont sell a product with the tag name "The Best Web Browsing Experience Available" .....
And you would get the Moron of the Year award if you buy nonsense like that. I am sure you didn't buy the tag line. So, would other smart people buy it, and if so, why?
That's a rather useless comparison.
That may be, or not, but it's a rather useless point.
You can't question SJ's conclusion based on the specific assumption he made. Given his assumption, he is exactly right in what he said. That's the fact. Get over it. Move along (I can't understand why you're so incapable of it).
I am disappointed because I am more pessimistic than you. I just don't see it happening. I really believe that the only reason flash isn't on the idevices is because Apple does not want a competitive threat to its app store. Who would download games from the app store if Farmville is a click away? Or TV shows from iTunes, if you could just go to NBC instead?
That's why these restrictions concern me.
Do you own Apple shares?
..so until I see the Kindle and other ebook readers available for the iPad...
Um, they stated multiple times your iPhone apps will sync right over and be useable from day 1.
Are you implying they will block the existing Kindle iPhone app from syncing to the iPad, or is this just more "Apple is evil" speculation that never comes to fruit?
The moment someone sees the missing flash plugin icon, clicks on it, then finds out they can't install flash, then the platform is closed.
Interesting that you equate closed with not being able to install Flash.
That's Flash the closed, proprietary, accessibility hostile, largely unnecessary, resource hog?
fuck flash
Concise, to the point and..................... SPOT ON!
Show me some site and statistics on this one PLEASE cause im calling you full of it.
I don't have to - multiple leading video sites were linked in this thread. If you look around HTML5 is buzzing all over the place. Flash's days are numbered. It's already irrelevant to my browsing experience on my MBP - I rarely whitelist or authorize a flash app to run.
Really, because it wasnt until recently i think that Apple made it so your music can be DRM free and not tethered to only iTunes. But good way to throw something in there i wasnt really talking about.
Music sold from iTunes - until recently when Apple was able to convince the record companies to drop DRM - did have DRM. But the first 50 gigs of music I put on my iPod came from CD's and MP3's I had. I didn't buy my first iTunes track for almost a year after I had my first iPod and was using it successfully.
And you were talking about it because you were making these typically unfounded claims about Apple being "closed"...
I wonder if it will be for free, because i sure as hell doubt Apple's will be.
Maybe, maybe not. They have also acquired their own mobile ad network company as well.
Streaming/buying paid content from a provider and being able to get the SAME CONTENT FOR FREE from some website online is what can hurt Apple
Not if the paid streaming is reasonable and ad free. You may be willing to tolerate ads for free, but if there is a reasonably priced streaming option that's ad free, I'll happily pay to be ad free. There's lots of room in here. And netflix is available in non-silverlight streams - there is nothing to say that the current free guys that rely on flash or silverlight couldn't offer something else if it was worth it to them. It's just software...
(Apple has the most to lose unlike Palm/RIM/Android with no established media stores).
Again, you are assuming Apple's media sales are key to it's bottom line. While they are there, they aren't as key to Apple as they are to, say, Amazon with the Kindle.
Remember Flash goes beyond just music and videos but also into apps and games...and that conveniently steps right on Apples toes yet again
Not really. Apps and games that were flash only have somehow managed to make their way onto the iPhone (look at the flurry of activity from the likes of PopCap). Flash is no longer the 200lb gorilla of the internet. Add 10 million iPads and things will be dire indeed for Flash.
Yeah, it renders it moot...in 10 years.
Hang on to that dream - HTML5 is going to be a whirl-wind adoption that will make CSS look like a fad
How about we get a standard out that consumers can AND DO use today and implement for tomorrow at the same time? That to me seems like a common sense standpoint no?
HTML 5 is here today. Even Microsoft is getting into the groove with HTML 5.
You're also assuming that Flash/Silverlight will literally be standing still for the next 10 years, neither of us know so dont even dare try to act like you do.
Your assuming it will matter that they will not be standing still. I won't care because I won't be using them
Microsoft was able to steamroll over earlier browser vendors with pure market dominance and their muddying of the waters and Internet standards allowed Flash to step into the void. That's no longer the case.
That's a rather useless comparison. Apple is getting the profits of both the hardware and software from a sale. MS only gets the software profits.
Sounds like a flawed model for the long term, no?
If you want to add up both the hardware and software profits from all Windows laptops, that'd be a much fairer comparison.
How so? Microsoft doesn't see that hardware revenue.
And then I think the numbers would show a fairly different picture.
Yup, an inaccurate one!
There's no doubt Apple is a huge player in mobile devices. I am not disputing that. I don't take issue with cherry-picking stats to suit their marketing. How convenient for Jobs to compare all mobile devices that Apple sells to a company that pretty much sells only mobile phones or one that sells only gaming devices. If Nokia started selling music players and laptops, it'd be a fair revenue comparison.
As others pointed out, Nokia does sell laptops. It won't matter, by this time next year Apple will surpass Nokia in revenue with just the iPhone/iPad. Notice I said revenue - you can focus on market share if you like, but hi marketshare/low profit devices don't bring in the revenue and in more ways than one.
Nokia is in serious trouble and they know it.