Don't mean to burst your bubble but your points point more toward a device that uses a stylus. No a msachine that will require ipad store apps as a machine like the courier willallow for volume purchasing and deployment, something the ipad can't come close to doing, especially depolyment.
Sign here please for the bill. How.
Sign here for your charts, how.
Your logic makes no sense. To be fair. The Courier is still vapor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Nokia should down play this as much as possible because Apple will soon become the biggest mobile device company in the world by any definition. This iPad will sell better than the iPhone since there is essentially no competition for the iPad at this time.
Yes, if a) laptops are counted in and b) revenue is the deciding factor and c) market penetration is not.
Steve chose a definition of his own (not exactly an industry standard definition) and with that particular definition the claim seems to be true. With another set of definitions it wouldn't. When you ask the street layman about what do you think are products of the mobile industry, you'd get a different answer than Steve's.
There's another more fitting definition for devices of the laptop class: nomadic devices. I.E. You can move them, but you use them while stationary. This is a fairly well known term in the mobile industry (where I do work) to distinguish between truly mobile devices and environments (use while moving, working handovers etc. This is true for GSM, CDMA, 3G and LTE networks, not so for WLANs). And I'm aware of 3G dongles and tethering for laptops.
So Steve gets to pick, but no-one else does? Or when "the others" use a more standard definition, they are wrong?
The result is very impressive regardless is Apple or is not the biggest mobile vendor (yet). There's no denying that. And given a few quarters, the way things are going, there will be no argument about which is the biggest mobile vendor by revenue or profit.
At least I now know by what figures Apple is the biggest mobile vendor so I've gotten the data I came here to get.
Regs, Jarkko
Ugh. C'mon. When I said 'right set of numbers,' I was referring to the numbers that Apple reported to the SEC. There is only one correct set of numbers there, period.
You are conflating two separate points of discussion: One, whether SJ was 'correct' in his definition of 'mobile'/'portable'/whatever, and two, given his definition, whether his numbers were correct. I was merely referring to the latter, and you know it.
On the former, while it is fair for Nokia to say "but we sell more, we have a higher market share," there is no need to disparage a conclusion SJ arrived at from a specific set of assumptions he chose to make. It would be, for instance, just as valid for SJ to say, "we have the largest revenue of anyone in sales of computers in the $1000+ category," or "we have the largest revenue from music sales to the eskimos" (perhaps I should say Inuit) or whatever.
The fact that his definition has people like you (or companies like Nokia) all in a tizzy tells me that it struck a nerve. Perhaps the larger point is, in a world in which devices such as mobile phones, PMPs, GPS systems, laptops, video-players, etc are converging, that might very well end up being the new definition of 'portable' or 'mobile.'
We watch online programs all the time without a problem. The problem is in snow. If booted to snow we have to use firefox if booted to leopard, we can use Safari so I think the problem lyre with Safari and most networks and cable use flash.
We Aldo don't consider a dog skateboarding on a skateboard entertainment.
When we can watch shows for free without more than 3 minutes total worth of commercial compared to :17 on TV, we will believe Jobs but right now, 75% of the net depends on flash or xvid, both not supported on the iPhone or ipad, so what Jobs said about holding the net is a lie. He wants you to pay for what is free and was why he tried to get the networks to agree on all you can watch. But they are no fools. They make their own revenue with :15/:30 ads no more then 5 per show and some are flash based and fun to play. Inaddition, watching on a mac allows you to check email and so on during the ads so it needs to be added.
The networks also dint want all you can eat as they sell full season on blue Ray, a huge difference, and one reason blue Ray is not on a mac is once you see the difference, you'll never watch so caled HD from iTunes. I had Mlb last year in the mac and was getting 720 or 1080 interlaced and the 720 P via my HDMI monitor looked like glass. Night and day.
OMG Are you on a mac or what ??
I am sure flash is a great media player,The ABC TV player is fantastic on my MBP 15 IN . Its fat large ugly flash ads and 5 minute mini movie ads that slow the net down . Also go to ITUNE's and DL a HD episode of BATTLE STAR GALACTICA . You get 2 copeis One for large screen playback and one for your ipod type device. The quality is very very nice .
Last time 720p or 1080 p mean zippo on a ting laptop screen.SORRY
You need to move to 42 IN or larger TV SETS to see a small DIFFERENCE bet the two . The BLURAY ass states this clearly , If you put 1080 p in to a dell laptop /dell will down grade the picture to fit its screen size .IF YOU port from a BR dvd inside your DELL to a largeTV set THEN it will look fantastic on your big screen TV .
Apple Media play back on its new machine's looks fantastic . Older masc lap tops look like shit now ,.
I am a expert !!!
i have for 10 yrs rented a small booth to sell gem stoines on 47 st nyc . and i have 2 laptops on at all times for 10 yrs straight . MY MBP15IN3.02Gz 500G 7200rpm PLAYS movies /internet TV and medias files almost all the time picture perfect , Even some street boots look great . I do this all day every day . i just watched all nine seasons of the X-FILES in a row .AND now i am on BATTLESTAR GALACTICA All 4 seasons 2 movies and a mini series .Fraking great show
I am sure there are high end dells that can match or come close to the new apples media playback.
I wish all you wintel guys the best of luclkwith win7 and all that.
i like my humble apple gear
peace
9
as for what steve jobs is doing i get all you have for free too
Thanks for that link. I'm still laughing at those comments/predictions about the first iPod ... how ridiculous they look now ... probably how the present day "experts" who fill these boards will look 6 years into the future. Too bad that some people seem to born with no imagination but with plenty of negativity.
You do realize that the majority of cellphones sold, even in the developed world are still non-smartphones right? That $99 price tag reads like a sales play from the proverbial used car salesman.
They had non-contract refurbs over the summer for $99. As time goes on, volume goes up, technology marches on, the price will come down. It won't be long before an unsubsidized $99 3G is a reality. Heck, look at the price of the iPad - it's unsubsidized and almost half what most people assumed it would be.
So, again, just how many years do you think people are going to tolerate non-smartphones? The market has 10 years, if that, left - period. That has to be pretty damn scary for the likes of Nokia.
Quote:
Nice that you roam in an affluent crowd.
No, not really. What I would consider typical middle-america. I'm not the only one - others have posted the same in the thread.
Quote:
But I just have not seen that anywhere here in Canada or whenever I've visited family in the US. I kid you not. I have not seen any kid below the age of 10 in possession of an iPod Touch or iPhone. Everyone may have anecdotal stories or the odd internet story. But, this is something I have yet to see.
Well, it's out there. Apple has sold literally millions of them - they have to be going somewhere. Perhaps your just not that observant? Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't selling. The MacBook Air, the MacBook that people lacking imagination love to cite as a failure, is still #20 on Amazons list and has been in the top 100 for 233 days by their stats. Just go look at how many Apple laptops are in the top 20. "Domination" is a totally appropriate word to describe their presence in that category. You don't achieve sales like that by just being pretty, flashy or trendy.
Quote:
The DS just needs to drop the price. They can easily make the entire DS lineup sub-$100 devices. There is no way Apple would chase Nintendo into that territory.
Apple doesn't have to. Compared to an iPod Touch, the DS is a one trick pony of limited use.
And if they finally do fix whatever issue is preventing accessory makers from releasing the control sleds for the iPhone/iPod Touch that have been floating around, it really will be game over for Nintendo.
Single task devices are toast. Be it the Kindle, DS, stand alone DVD players or basic feature phones... convergence is happening, and far faster and far more reasonably priced than I expected - I figured things would be above $500 for a few more years - but with Apple starting at $500 for the iPad, it's going to come down that much quicker for the entry level model. Which, like with the iPod, iPhone, MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac - will be the lowest selling model. The vast majority will be in the upper middle or high end. For all the fuss about the entry price, it's amazing how few people buy at the entry price point.
Quote:
True. And they do line up to buy Jobs' gear as soon as they hit the pre-teen stage and music and fashion suddenly become important.
It's more than just music and fashion. There is substantial usability and value. Fashion is even more fickle than the kids - Apple wouldn't have sustained the success that they have had over the last decade if it was merely style - there is substance, and it's substantial. To try to dismiss Apple's success as people being attracted to Apple purely because of style, popularity or some other vapid reason is extremely disingenuous and shallow.
And by this time extremely tired. You might as well throw in the word beleaguered and cuddle up with some old John C. Dvorak columns...
Hey Doc- Make my day!Too bad- ever hear of skim reading? Feeling whiny?
Hey TS ... the problem is we all have seen the results when you, under your previous name, tried skim reading ... lowered comprehension ... better to do it right than fast. Like I tell my wife... if your doing it right .. you don't have to do it often.
So, again, just how many years do you think people are going to tolerate non-smartphones? The market has 10 years, if that, left - period. That has to be pretty damn scary for the likes of Nokia.
To take a cue from Steve Jobs, how are you defining "people"? Middle class Americans? 95% of the world's population live outside of North America and their desires may be very different from yours.
Let's remember that Nokia's smartphone market share increased 5% last quarter. Through their partnership with Psion, they invented the term smartphone. Yes, they've got some catching up to do but their brand is still exceptionally strong globally.
I enjoyed the comments and not as stuck up as our British dude to mention the lame feedback concerning your writing style, cheapest jab in the book. He was the one mentioning name calling and provide cheap shots.
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.
I recognize that Apple makes money from hardware. But is that model going to hold in-perpetuity?
What I find most interesting is the move by Apple into the internet space. They could have easily partnered up with Google to really do cloud computing decently. Tons of people use GMail, Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Search and Google Maps. Apple could have provided the platform, the OS and easy integration into Google's services. It wouldn't have to spend much to integrate into Google. And would have benefited immensely from all of Googles "content" if you will.
Instead, they chose to compete with Google. First with the cloud (MobileMe). And now they are ramping up the fight by getting into maps and internet advertising, bringing Microsoft onboard with Bing search (and maybe maps), etc. Apple looks like it wants to get into the internet services game.
That's pretty far from hardware and operating systems and even basic cloud services.
Since I like the Apple experience, I normally would not be concerned. But when it's starting to look like Apple is throwing it's weight around, promoting its closed model onto internet services, I am getting more and more worried that Apple is starting to become another Microsoft. The flash incident. The Google voice spat. And the imposition of the more closed idevices model on the iPad seem to me to be symptomatic of a shift in Apple's behaviour. We'll never know for sure if Apple really cares about open standards or their feuding with Adobe just because Flash does threaten some Apple services. I sincerely hope I am wrong on this one. We'll see.
this is why cloud computing will one day kill adobe and google
...
google needs a closed system for its ads yo be effective
...
google is a one horse show just like adobe
...
google will be come small very soon
....
We'll see. But I wouldn't bet against the company that pretty much pioneered many of the services that people use on the net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
flash is not blocked on any apple computers .
Never said it was. But Apple does do a pretty decent job of keeping flash off its iDevices. I'll be less worried if they allow a browser on the iPad that does accommodate Flash.
I recognize that Apple makes money from hardware. But is that model going to hold in-perpetuity?
What I find most interesting is the move by Apple into the internet space. They could have easily partnered up with Google to really do cloud computing decently. Tons of people use GMail, Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Search and Google Maps. Apple could have provided the platform, the OS and easy integration into Google's services. It wouldn't have to spend much to integrate into Google. And would have benefited immensely from all of Googles "content" if you will.
Instead, they chose to compete with Google. First with the cloud (MobileMe). And now they are ramping up the fight by getting into maps and internet advertising, bringing Microsoft onboard with Bing search (and maybe maps), etc. Apple looks like it wants to get into the internet services game.
That's pretty far from hardware and operating systems and even basic cloud services.
Since I like the Apple experience, I normally would not be concerned. But when it's starting to look like Apple is throwing it's weight around, promoting its closed model onto internet services, I am getting more and more worried that Apple is starting to become another Microsoft. The flash incident. The Google voice spat. And the imposition of the more closed idevices model on the iPad seem to me to be symptomatic of a shift in Apple's behaviour. We'll never know for sure if Apple really cares about open standards or their feuding with Adobe just because Flash does threaten some Apple services. I sincerely hope I am wrong on this one. We'll see.
That's exactly backwards, IMO.
Google is an ad company. They make they're money from online adverting, and delivering eyeballs. That's it. That's the business model.
All the rest-- various services, Android, Chrome-- are just efforts to ensure that Google's ad money continues to flow, by locking Google search to a larger computing ecosystem. Mobile Me doesn't' compete with Google, except insofar as Mobile Me doesn't deliver hits. It's a fundamentally different model-- Apple is motivated to make the best possible hardware and software experience they can, because that's their business and how they make money. Google is motivated to make services that are good enough to attract eyeballs who they can then sell to advertisers, because that's their business. Until Apple starts doing it's own ad play, they cannot be said to have been moving into Google's territory, because at the end of the day ads are all Google does.
It's Google that could have chosen to partner with Apple, by doing nothing more than allowing Google search to be the default on Apple's devices. That's all they really want or need, is that ubiquitous search bar.
Instead, they've moved aggressively into the software, OS and mobile hardware spaces, all but guaranteeing a split with Apple. Their gamble is that they can sufficiently overrun the mobile space to make it well worth their while to compete this way. If they miscalculated-- if Apple becomes the dominate mobile vendor and shuns Google-- it will go down as one of the great strategic business blunders of all time.
You know something's up when CNET sees fit to run an article explaining why an unreleased product that we don't know much about yet isn't really as good as the stuff they've been using.
If you just step back and consider the mindset that would lead to even bothering to write such an article, let alone run with it, you have to assume the iPad is driving the tech press slowly insane. Maybe they could just start running posts that say "It's a witch!"
someone spoke here and said somthing like his touch plays his tv like remote controller
it hit me that the ipad can one day be the ATV of the future
like a general directing content from one HD to a media device of your choosing
when not in use it can have a photo or album art slide show mode
again thanks for the support
i count you and 610 and mel as the top dudes here
peace
9
You're welcome. And thanks. I thoroughly enjoy your posts too.
Just so that every newbie that you interact with does not bring this up ad nauseam, I wonder if you might perhaps consider adding something to your signature? E.g., "Hey, get over it: you'll get used to the way I write" (I am sure you could say it far better than I just did!).
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?
Yes, you can use the existing Kindle iPhone app, but will Apple allow a full-size iPad Kindle app? I would think they would but Apple could make a decision to protect the iBookStore, just like they did to block Google Voice.
I have never made any statement along the lines of "Apple is evil" but that doesn't mean they won't sometimes make stupid decisions.
Comments
Sign here please for the bill. How.
Sign here for your charts, how.
Your logic makes no sense. To be fair. The Courier is still vapor.
Nokia should down play this as much as possible because Apple will soon become the biggest mobile device company in the world by any definition. This iPad will sell better than the iPhone since there is essentially no competition for the iPad at this time.
Stay tuned: http://www.apple.com/ipad/notify-me/
1. Every university student will buy one. (Will be required gear in some schools.)
2. Commuters will buy them for reading, entertainment, work etc...
3. Hospitals will use them for patient medical records and other information.
4. Fancy hotel and fancy waiting areas will have them to entertain guests.
5. Delivery companies will buy them for updating delivery status.
6. Fancy restaurants will buy them for interactive menus for ordering food.
7. Businesses will buy them for their employees.
8. Publishers may give them away free for long term subscriptions.
9. Gamers will buy them for big screen mobile games.
10. Many people who can not use PCs can handle can handle this mobile iPad.
Time will tell.
Yes, if a) laptops are counted in and b) revenue is the deciding factor and c) market penetration is not.
Steve chose a definition of his own (not exactly an industry standard definition) and with that particular definition the claim seems to be true. With another set of definitions it wouldn't. When you ask the street layman about what do you think are products of the mobile industry, you'd get a different answer than Steve's.
There's another more fitting definition for devices of the laptop class: nomadic devices. I.E. You can move them, but you use them while stationary. This is a fairly well known term in the mobile industry (where I do work) to distinguish between truly mobile devices and environments (use while moving, working handovers etc. This is true for GSM, CDMA, 3G and LTE networks, not so for WLANs). And I'm aware of 3G dongles and tethering for laptops.
So Steve gets to pick, but no-one else does? Or when "the others" use a more standard definition, they are wrong?
The result is very impressive regardless is Apple or is not the biggest mobile vendor (yet). There's no denying that. And given a few quarters, the way things are going, there will be no argument about which is the biggest mobile vendor by revenue or profit.
At least I now know by what figures Apple is the biggest mobile vendor so I've gotten the data I came here to get.
Regs, Jarkko
Ugh. C'mon. When I said 'right set of numbers,' I was referring to the numbers that Apple reported to the SEC. There is only one correct set of numbers there, period.
You are conflating two separate points of discussion: One, whether SJ was 'correct' in his definition of 'mobile'/'portable'/whatever, and two, given his definition, whether his numbers were correct. I was merely referring to the latter, and you know it.
On the former, while it is fair for Nokia to say "but we sell more, we have a higher market share," there is no need to disparage a conclusion SJ arrived at from a specific set of assumptions he chose to make. It would be, for instance, just as valid for SJ to say, "we have the largest revenue of anyone in sales of computers in the $1000+ category," or "we have the largest revenue from music sales to the eskimos" (perhaps I should say Inuit) or whatever.
The fact that his definition has people like you (or companies like Nokia) all in a tizzy tells me that it struck a nerve. Perhaps the larger point is, in a world in which devices such as mobile phones, PMPs, GPS systems, laptops, video-players, etc are converging, that might very well end up being the new definition of 'portable' or 'mobile.'
What the heck is all that supposed to be? Sorry, gave up trying to read it after 2 lines.
Please learn to proof read, edit, and the basics of punctuation, spelling, and grammer.
Regrets dude
I did a re write please try again.
We watch online programs all the time without a problem. The problem is in snow. If booted to snow we have to use firefox if booted to leopard, we can use Safari so I think the problem lyre with Safari and most networks and cable use flash.
We Aldo don't consider a dog skateboarding on a skateboard entertainment.
When we can watch shows for free without more than 3 minutes total worth of commercial compared to :17 on TV, we will believe Jobs but right now, 75% of the net depends on flash or xvid, both not supported on the iPhone or ipad, so what Jobs said about holding the net is a lie. He wants you to pay for what is free and was why he tried to get the networks to agree on all you can watch. But they are no fools. They make their own revenue with :15/:30 ads no more then 5 per show and some are flash based and fun to play. Inaddition, watching on a mac allows you to check email and so on during the ads so it needs to be added.
The networks also dint want all you can eat as they sell full season on blue Ray, a huge difference, and one reason blue Ray is not on a mac is once you see the difference, you'll never watch so caled HD from iTunes. I had Mlb last year in the mac and was getting 720 or 1080 interlaced and the 720 P via my HDMI monitor looked like glass. Night and day.
OMG Are you on a mac or what ??
I am sure flash is a great media player,The ABC TV player is fantastic on my MBP 15 IN . Its fat large ugly flash ads and 5 minute mini movie ads that slow the net down . Also go to ITUNE's and DL a HD episode of BATTLE STAR GALACTICA . You get 2 copeis One for large screen playback and one for your ipod type device. The quality is very very nice .
Last time 720p or 1080 p mean zippo on a ting laptop screen.SORRY
You need to move to 42 IN or larger TV SETS to see a small DIFFERENCE bet the two . The BLURAY ass states this clearly , If you put 1080 p in to a dell laptop /dell will down grade the picture to fit its screen size .IF YOU port from a BR dvd inside your DELL to a largeTV set THEN it will look fantastic on your big screen TV .
Apple Media play back on its new machine's looks fantastic . Older masc lap tops look like shit now ,.
I am a expert !!!
i have for 10 yrs rented a small booth to sell gem stoines on 47 st nyc . and i have 2 laptops on at all times for 10 yrs straight . MY MBP15IN3.02Gz 500G 7200rpm PLAYS movies /internet TV and medias files almost all the time picture perfect , Even some street boots look great . I do this all day every day . i just watched all nine seasons of the X-FILES in a row .AND now i am on BATTLESTAR GALACTICA All 4 seasons 2 movies and a mini series .Fraking great show
I am sure there are high end dells that can match or come close to the new apples media playback.
I wish all you wintel guys the best of luclkwith win7 and all that.
i like my humble apple gear
peace
9
as for what steve jobs is doing i get all you have for free too
a
on any apple device
but apple can be shitty at times too,
no big deal
It's good to review what many thought in 2001, the debut of that "just another mp3" called an iPod. from http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=500
Thanks for that link. I'm still laughing at those comments/predictions about the first iPod ... how ridiculous they look now ... probably how the present day "experts" who fill these boards will look 6 years into the future. Too bad that some people seem to born with no imagination but with plenty of negativity.
You do realize that the majority of cellphones sold, even in the developed world are still non-smartphones right? That $99 price tag reads like a sales play from the proverbial used car salesman.
They had non-contract refurbs over the summer for $99. As time goes on, volume goes up, technology marches on, the price will come down. It won't be long before an unsubsidized $99 3G is a reality. Heck, look at the price of the iPad - it's unsubsidized and almost half what most people assumed it would be.
So, again, just how many years do you think people are going to tolerate non-smartphones? The market has 10 years, if that, left - period. That has to be pretty damn scary for the likes of Nokia.
Nice that you roam in an affluent crowd.
No, not really. What I would consider typical middle-america. I'm not the only one - others have posted the same in the thread.
But I just have not seen that anywhere here in Canada or whenever I've visited family in the US. I kid you not. I have not seen any kid below the age of 10 in possession of an iPod Touch or iPhone. Everyone may have anecdotal stories or the odd internet story. But, this is something I have yet to see.
Well, it's out there. Apple has sold literally millions of them - they have to be going somewhere. Perhaps your just not that observant? Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't selling. The MacBook Air, the MacBook that people lacking imagination love to cite as a failure, is still #20 on Amazons list and has been in the top 100 for 233 days by their stats. Just go look at how many Apple laptops are in the top 20. "Domination" is a totally appropriate word to describe their presence in that category. You don't achieve sales like that by just being pretty, flashy or trendy.
The DS just needs to drop the price. They can easily make the entire DS lineup sub-$100 devices. There is no way Apple would chase Nintendo into that territory.
Apple doesn't have to. Compared to an iPod Touch, the DS is a one trick pony of limited use.
And if they finally do fix whatever issue is preventing accessory makers from releasing the control sleds for the iPhone/iPod Touch that have been floating around, it really will be game over for Nintendo.
Single task devices are toast. Be it the Kindle, DS, stand alone DVD players or basic feature phones... convergence is happening, and far faster and far more reasonably priced than I expected - I figured things would be above $500 for a few more years - but with Apple starting at $500 for the iPad, it's going to come down that much quicker for the entry level model. Which, like with the iPod, iPhone, MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac - will be the lowest selling model. The vast majority will be in the upper middle or high end. For all the fuss about the entry price, it's amazing how few people buy at the entry price point.
True. And they do line up to buy Jobs' gear as soon as they hit the pre-teen stage and music and fashion suddenly become important.
It's more than just music and fashion. There is substantial usability and value. Fashion is even more fickle than the kids - Apple wouldn't have sustained the success that they have had over the last decade if it was merely style - there is substance, and it's substantial. To try to dismiss Apple's success as people being attracted to Apple purely because of style, popularity or some other vapid reason is extremely disingenuous and shallow.
And by this time extremely tired. You might as well throw in the word beleaguered and cuddle up with some old John C. Dvorak columns...
Hey Doc- Make my day!Too bad- ever hear of skim reading? Feeling whiny?
Hey TS ... the problem is we all have seen the results when you, under your previous name, tried skim reading ... lowered comprehension ... better to do it right than fast. Like I tell my wife... if your doing it right .. you don't have to do it often.
Regrets dude
I did a re write please try again.
You're cool, man. Stick to your style. No need for regrets/apologies.
So, again, just how many years do you think people are going to tolerate non-smartphones? The market has 10 years, if that, left - period. That has to be pretty damn scary for the likes of Nokia.
To take a cue from Steve Jobs, how are you defining "people"? Middle class Americans? 95% of the world's population live outside of North America and their desires may be very different from yours.
Let's remember that Nokia's smartphone market share increased 5% last quarter. Through their partnership with Psion, they invented the term smartphone. Yes, they've got some catching up to do but their brand is still exceptionally strong globally.
Through their partnership with Psion, they invented the term smartphone.
Yeah, Motorola invented the cell phone as we know it today (improving on prior work done by Lucent's Bell Labs).
Where are they now?
Success can be fleeting. Apple knows that too, more than most, having nearly died once before.
Regrets dude
I did a re write please try again.
I enjoyed the comments and not as stuck up as our British dude to mention the lame feedback concerning your writing style, cheapest jab in the book. He was the one mentioning name calling and provide cheap shots.
Keep it up dude.
You're cool, man. Stick to your style. No need for regrets/apologies.
thanks i needed that
my thoughts come out jumbled at times
someone spoke here and said somthing like his touch plays his tv like remote controller
it hit me that the ipad can one day be the ATV of the future
like a general directing content from one HD to a media device of your choosing
when not in use it can have a photo or album art slide show mode
again thanks for the support
i count you and 610 and mel as the top dudes here
peace
9
Before you make another comment read the articles called Flash wars http://www.appleinsider.com/topics/Flash_Wars.html
It may help you understand why we do not like FLASH.
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.
I recognize that Apple makes money from hardware. But is that model going to hold in-perpetuity?
What I find most interesting is the move by Apple into the internet space. They could have easily partnered up with Google to really do cloud computing decently. Tons of people use GMail, Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Search and Google Maps. Apple could have provided the platform, the OS and easy integration into Google's services. It wouldn't have to spend much to integrate into Google. And would have benefited immensely from all of Googles "content" if you will.
Instead, they chose to compete with Google. First with the cloud (MobileMe). And now they are ramping up the fight by getting into maps and internet advertising, bringing Microsoft onboard with Bing search (and maybe maps), etc. Apple looks like it wants to get into the internet services game.
That's pretty far from hardware and operating systems and even basic cloud services.
Since I like the Apple experience, I normally would not be concerned. But when it's starting to look like Apple is throwing it's weight around, promoting its closed model onto internet services, I am getting more and more worried that Apple is starting to become another Microsoft. The flash incident. The Google voice spat. And the imposition of the more closed idevices model on the iPad seem to me to be symptomatic of a shift in Apple's behaviour. We'll never know for sure if Apple really cares about open standards or their feuding with Adobe just because Flash does threaten some Apple services. I sincerely hope I am wrong on this one. We'll see.
....
this is why cloud computing will one day kill adobe and google
...
google needs a closed system for its ads yo be effective
...
google is a one horse show just like adobe
...
google will be come small very soon
....
We'll see. But I wouldn't bet against the company that pretty much pioneered many of the services that people use on the net.
flash is not blocked on any apple computers .
Never said it was. But Apple does do a pretty decent job of keeping flash off its iDevices. I'll be less worried if they allow a browser on the iPad that does accommodate Flash.
I recognize that Apple makes money from hardware. But is that model going to hold in-perpetuity?
What I find most interesting is the move by Apple into the internet space. They could have easily partnered up with Google to really do cloud computing decently. Tons of people use GMail, Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Search and Google Maps. Apple could have provided the platform, the OS and easy integration into Google's services. It wouldn't have to spend much to integrate into Google. And would have benefited immensely from all of Googles "content" if you will.
Instead, they chose to compete with Google. First with the cloud (MobileMe). And now they are ramping up the fight by getting into maps and internet advertising, bringing Microsoft onboard with Bing search (and maybe maps), etc. Apple looks like it wants to get into the internet services game.
That's pretty far from hardware and operating systems and even basic cloud services.
Since I like the Apple experience, I normally would not be concerned. But when it's starting to look like Apple is throwing it's weight around, promoting its closed model onto internet services, I am getting more and more worried that Apple is starting to become another Microsoft. The flash incident. The Google voice spat. And the imposition of the more closed idevices model on the iPad seem to me to be symptomatic of a shift in Apple's behaviour. We'll never know for sure if Apple really cares about open standards or their feuding with Adobe just because Flash does threaten some Apple services. I sincerely hope I am wrong on this one. We'll see.
That's exactly backwards, IMO.
Google is an ad company. They make they're money from online adverting, and delivering eyeballs. That's it. That's the business model.
All the rest-- various services, Android, Chrome-- are just efforts to ensure that Google's ad money continues to flow, by locking Google search to a larger computing ecosystem. Mobile Me doesn't' compete with Google, except insofar as Mobile Me doesn't deliver hits. It's a fundamentally different model-- Apple is motivated to make the best possible hardware and software experience they can, because that's their business and how they make money. Google is motivated to make services that are good enough to attract eyeballs who they can then sell to advertisers, because that's their business. Until Apple starts doing it's own ad play, they cannot be said to have been moving into Google's territory, because at the end of the day ads are all Google does.
It's Google that could have chosen to partner with Apple, by doing nothing more than allowing Google search to be the default on Apple's devices. That's all they really want or need, is that ubiquitous search bar.
Instead, they've moved aggressively into the software, OS and mobile hardware spaces, all but guaranteeing a split with Apple. Their gamble is that they can sufficiently overrun the mobile space to make it well worth their while to compete this way. If they miscalculated-- if Apple becomes the dominate mobile vendor and shuns Google-- it will go down as one of the great strategic business blunders of all time.
above reasons why i should buy a netbook over a iPad, then I should just buy a laptop?
If you just step back and consider the mindset that would lead to even bothering to write such an article, let alone run with it, you have to assume the iPad is driving the tech press slowly insane. Maybe they could just start running posts that say "It's a witch!"
thanks i needed that
my thoughts come out jumbled at times
someone spoke here and said somthing like his touch plays his tv like remote controller
it hit me that the ipad can one day be the ATV of the future
like a general directing content from one HD to a media device of your choosing
when not in use it can have a photo or album art slide show mode
again thanks for the support
i count you and 610 and mel as the top dudes here
peace
9
You're welcome. And thanks. I thoroughly enjoy your posts too.
Just so that every newbie that you interact with does not bring this up ad nauseam, I wonder if you might perhaps consider adding something to your signature? E.g., "Hey, get over it: you'll get used to the way I write" (I am sure you could say it far better than I just did!).
Just a thought, fwiw.....
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?
Yes, you can use the existing Kindle iPhone app, but will Apple allow a full-size iPad Kindle app? I would think they would but Apple could make a decision to protect the iBookStore, just like they did to block Google Voice.
I have never made any statement along the lines of "Apple is evil" but that doesn't mean they won't sometimes make stupid decisions.