So your position is that the majority of Macbook owners are not normal consumers but pros?
I would argue that most macbook owners are not pros and that 90% of their mobile computing needs would be met by an iPad.
No, I'm not saying that they're pros, but I do think they do more than check their facebook accounts and surf the web. I think most MacBook owners run at least one program that couldn't run on the iPad, and depend heavily on multitasking. Most importantly, they're obviously accepting of spending at least a grand on a computer. Few of them would be willing to step back to an iPad, except for the ones who really do just check their facebook and watch youtube videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Frankly, my impression is you don't like the iPad so you're really just arguing a moot point. No scenario would satisfy you except the one Apple doesn't seem inclined to allow.
No, I really like the iPad, and I intend to get one. I just think they're missing a huge new (to Apple, at least) market by limiting the device as an expensive, functionally redundant accessory for people with $500+ burning a hole in their pocket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
It's not meant to be a cheap notebook killer...which is what you're asking for.
It's meant to be a competitive alternative to a netbook purchased as a secondary device.
I think that's probably a small, small market. The real netbook market are people too cheap to spend a grand on a laptop, and again they were never going to get an Apple because there's no MacBook even close to their $300 price range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Except that people aren't stupid. Even people with money aren't stupid. A 90% solution for 50% will deeply cannibalize the 100% solution even among those that can afford the 100% solution.
Why pay double for a device that has features you don't really need when the cheaper device is more portable, does 90% of what you need and is uber cool?
The iPad can do more than 10% of what a computer can do as evidenced your own assertion that it can meet 90% of the use cases of the average computer user. If it can meet 90% of the needs of 90% of people it sure isn't a 10% solution or a "toy".
And Apple doesn't want a $500 starter mac or the Mini would be $499 as well as opposed to $599.
Most car companies offer an entry-level model close to the $10k mark; it can do everything a car needs to — it can get you from point A to point B reliably and safely, and yet amazingly people still buy more expensive cars. Cars easily two, three, even four times more than that. Hell, the entry-level model isn't even any car manufaturers' number one seller.
If they've got the money, people will spend more for more, whether they need it or not. If the entry level model seems limited or restricted in some way, they'll pay more to overcome those issues. And the iPad, with it's iPhone-based operating system, is indeed very limited. And if people have the money to opt for a $999 MacBook they will. The point of having a crippled base model, besides to drive sales to more expensive models, is to be able to make a sale to those people who don't have a grand to drop on a "real" computer.
Making the iPad a slave device to a Mac that costs twice the price is like making the Toyota Yaris require ownership of a Toyota Prius, for fear that otherwise the Yaris would cannibalize Prius sales. That's just stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
In any case, 16GB is too small to be a master device anyway. This is why an aTV with 500GB would be a better master device for the iPod/iPhone/iPad family of slave devices for folks that don't want the hassle of having a real PC.
So make the iPad work with Time Capsule and sell them one of those; they need a wireless router (and should have a backup solution) anyway.
Nice cherry picking. Even if the iPad was made a master device in software the hardware is too limited to be so. Thus a TC or aTV like mini-server would be desired.
If you have a TC or aTV master then the iPad doesn't need to be a master device.
No, I'm not saying that they're pros, but I do think they do more than check their facebook accounts and surf the web.
Which is a good thing that the iPad does more than facebook and web surfing.
Quote:
I think most MacBook owners run at least one program that couldn't run on the iPad, and depend heavily on multitasking. Most importantly, they're obviously accepting of spending at least a grand on a computer. Few of them would be willing to step back to an iPad, except for the ones who really do just check their facebook and watch youtube videos.
Name some programs that isn't a pro app that couldn't be on the iPad. The only common one is possibly iMovie due to processing time.
Multitasking is useful but "depend heavily"? Again, you'll have to provide a common example beyond the usual "I wanna run Pandora in the background". Cutting and pasting from Safari into iWork is a possible common use case but likely one that will be worked around by Apple even without generic multitasking.
Quote:
No, I really like the iPad, and I intend to get one. I just think they're missing a huge new (to Apple, at least) market by limiting the device as an expensive, functionally redundant accessory for people with $500+ burning a hole in their pocket.
This is not a market they are interested in if it costs them any of their current market. They have taken significant steps to make sure cannibalization does not occur as it has for HP, Dell, etc and their netbooks.
Quote:
I think that's probably a small, small market. The real netbook market are people too cheap to spend a grand on a laptop, and again they were never going to get an Apple because there's no MacBook even close to their $300 price range.
Again, Apple isn't interested in this market or they'd have released a netbook.
Quote:
Most car companies offer an entry-level model close to the $10k mark; it can do everything a car needs to — it can get you from point A to point B reliably and safely, and yet amazingly people still buy more expensive cars. Cars easily two, three, even four times more than that. Hell, the entry-level model isn't even any car manufaturers' number one seller.
Not Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, etc. Apple does not have a budget brand. Even then, the Mini brand has a $16K car at the bottom end and not a $10K one.
Quote:
If they've got the money, people will spend more for more, whether they need it or not. If the entry level model seems limited or restricted in some way, they'll pay more to overcome those issues. And the iPad, with it's iPhone-based operating system, is indeed very limited.
Not if it is a 90% solution for 90% of the users.
Quote:
And if people have the money to opt for a $999 MacBook they will. The point of having a crippled base model, besides to drive sales to more expensive models, is to be able to make a sale to those people who don't have a grand to drop on a "real" computer.
A sale they don't care about and leave to HP and Dell.
Quote:
Making the iPad a slave device to a Mac that costs twice the price is like making the Toyota Yaris require ownership of a Toyota Prius, for fear that otherwise the Yaris would cannibalize Prius sales. That's just stupid.
Every analogy fails at some point and yours does here. The iPad is a different kind of computing experience and not just a cheaper mac.
Quote:
So make the iPad work with Time Capsule and sell them one of those; they need a wireless router (and should have a backup solution) anyway.
A TC can be that mini server device that is the master but the aTV is a more compelling device because it can have a large screen for presentations and games. Plus it's always been much more a computing device than the TC and already can serve as its own master without a PC device. It is much simpler to use than a Mini and a dual core A4 can likely outperform the Pentium M it has.
A TC can be that mini server device that is the master but the aTV is a more compelling device because it can have a large screen for presentations and games. Plus it's always been much more a computing device than the TC and already can serve as its own master without a PC device. It is much simpler to use than a Mini and a dual core A4 can likely outperform the Pentium M it has.
I think the best answer is for BOTH the Time Capsule & the TV…
Time Capsule handles WiFi & backup of TV/user accounts; TV handles syncing, with a larger HDD is a mass storage device, and is a larger portal for media & games…
Now, getting a front facing camera on the iPad and setting up iChat to allow for an in house video intercom, that is the next step…
Two months ago I joined Netflix to use with my PS3. I was so impressed that I bought a Roku device to use on another TV in a different room. For $8.99 a month I can watch unlimited movies and TV shows. I just don't see why anyone would prefer an Apple TV when you can get a far better selection of content for so much cheaper with a Netflix device. Not to mention the fact that I can also play blu ray and play games as well on my PS3. And thanks to Medialink, I have full access to all the content on my Mac Pro including music, videos, and even photos.
Apple really needs to either offer a similar deal to Netflix or partner with them to make it a Netflix enabled device. (Unlikely) Most people do not want to buy a TV show or movie, they just want to watch it once and delete it. A cheap rental model makes far more sense. I can watch unlimited movies AND TV shows for example in one month for less money than buying 5 episodes of the office. Apple TV just does not make any sense to me.
I was thinking about iPad being only a slave device and how to mitigate that within the Apple ecosystem without (excessive) cannibalization of MB and iMac sales.
I came back to thinking about this the other day.
The iPad (and the iPod and the AppleTV) all need a computer to act as the local syncing hub.
The need for this arose for logical reasons - but the need for a gigantic lump of office machinery in the house holds these devices back.
If you want to own a dishwasher, you shouldn't really need to own a generator to run it.
If I want to give an iPad to my parents, why should they need another computer as well?
We talked about AppleTV - or the Airport as being a local hub for the iPad etc.
But what if the "hub" was simply a cloud-based service? What if it was MobileMe?
You subscribe to MobileMe - and get the ability to buy and store music, rent movies, keep your photos and files, run your email server. And so on. The hub is not in your house, it's in the cloud. 100% of the the syncing is done over Wifi. No need for a physical hub at all.
Of course - to pull this off - Apple would need a very big data center.
I suggested before that Apple should update the Apple TV with the iPad's guts. Suddenly the Apple TV will be 1000x more desirable thanks to access to thousands of Apps.
With Google developing a set-top box, I think the idea of the TV becoming the Master to the iPads Slave is an even stronger one…
With a combination of the two (TV & iPad) you can do everything the Google set-top box would do, AND have the added benefit of using the iPad to control the entertainment & surf the web…
With Google developing a set-top box, I think the idea of the TV becoming the Master to the iPads Slave is an even stronger one?
With a combination of the two (TV & iPad) you can do everything the Google set-top box would do, AND have the added benefit of using the iPad to control the entertainment & surf the web?
aTV. A matter of time before it gets an update that takes it to the next level. eg HD, gaming device. I guess it could be a genuine media hub. A game console. A movie device. A 'blue ray' player. See other thread for that debate, I guess. Apple's behind downloads for now.
But isn't that what the Mac is for? And aTV streams plays media from the server Mac? Guess it doesn't have to be the Mac. Guess it could be the aTV. Media is on the net. aTV just needs a big enough hard drive to download and store that content. If the iPad gets so powerful over the next few years...you may question why you may even need an aTV...as you could theoretically miss it out the equation. But the iPad could be the control device for the aTV (a nice 'dumb' Mac for the consumer...which does media storage and playing ok...) so the iPad has a 'heavy' lifting partner...when you want to view something bigger than 10 inches eg on a 50 inch hi-def screen. So with a bit of a hardware bump, the aTV is still relevant and set to be ahead of the aTV for a few years yet. Another thought is that the iPad could 'dock' on a Mac Mini or even the aTV. So the aTV becomes a genuine remote for it's 'big brother' who does the 'heavy' lifting.
Time Machine as the back up device.
iPad as the control device.
Sync with your iPhone of course.
4 ducks in a row. All very consumer friendly...and stepping away from what we think of as 'traditional' computers.
I guess it's all speculation until Apple 'does it.'
But you can kinda see where it's all going. I still think the iPad is Star Trek technology. It's nothing short of amazing.
Can't wait until proper hi-def downloads/internet and content creation etc all get finally aligned.
It's like waiting for the planets to become aligned. It's tantalisingly close.
I wonder what this debate will be like in 5 years time.
Will many of this thread and the blue ray thread vs downloads be a mute point?
The iPad in 5 years time...*drools. We may even have an 'iMac Maxi-Pad' in that time. Think of a 15 inch Maxi Pad docked. Wonder if that's what the iMac will become? Hmm. ALl that stroking...and touching...and drooling...reaches for a box of Kleenex.
I am coming to the conclusion that the Master/Slave model is not where this is headed.
Users will retain the option of having a local hub machine to sync with.
But that is not a mass-market solution.
A cloud-based solution would mean that the AppleTV, the iPad and even iPods could be truly stand-alone devices.
C.
You may be on to something ... cloud-based ATV could with a subscription fee to unlimited movies would make it extremely attractive to me. Cloud-based gaming could follow.
You may be on to something ... cloud-based ATV could with a subscription fee to unlimited movies would make it extremely attractive to me. Cloud-based gaming could follow.
In many ways, the AppleTV almost *is* stand alone. You can buy and rent movies and music without having to go near a desktop/laptop computer. You can even update the Apple TV OS - over the air.
The only restriction is that you can't do is have a media library that is larger than the disk space of the device. That's 32Gs on the smaller ATV.
If your iTunes library lived in the cloud (and not on your Mac) that problem would go away. If you want to watch a movie, it would not matter if it was cached locally or not. You'd just do an on-demand re-download of your content. To any of your networked devices.
With a system like this - the wifi enabled AppleTV, iPod, and iPad could be much more autonomous. You really could give an iPad to your parents, without having to give them another computer to go with it.
Comments
So your position is that the majority of Macbook owners are not normal consumers but pros?
I would argue that most macbook owners are not pros and that 90% of their mobile computing needs would be met by an iPad.
No, I'm not saying that they're pros, but I do think they do more than check their facebook accounts and surf the web. I think most MacBook owners run at least one program that couldn't run on the iPad, and depend heavily on multitasking. Most importantly, they're obviously accepting of spending at least a grand on a computer. Few of them would be willing to step back to an iPad, except for the ones who really do just check their facebook and watch youtube videos.
Frankly, my impression is you don't like the iPad so you're really just arguing a moot point. No scenario would satisfy you except the one Apple doesn't seem inclined to allow.
No, I really like the iPad, and I intend to get one. I just think they're missing a huge new (to Apple, at least) market by limiting the device as an expensive, functionally redundant accessory for people with $500+ burning a hole in their pocket.
It's not meant to be a cheap notebook killer...which is what you're asking for.
It's meant to be a competitive alternative to a netbook purchased as a secondary device.
I think that's probably a small, small market. The real netbook market are people too cheap to spend a grand on a laptop, and again they were never going to get an Apple because there's no MacBook even close to their $300 price range.
Except that people aren't stupid. Even people with money aren't stupid. A 90% solution for 50% will deeply cannibalize the 100% solution even among those that can afford the 100% solution.
Why pay double for a device that has features you don't really need when the cheaper device is more portable, does 90% of what you need and is uber cool?
The iPad can do more than 10% of what a computer can do as evidenced your own assertion that it can meet 90% of the use cases of the average computer user. If it can meet 90% of the needs of 90% of people it sure isn't a 10% solution or a "toy".
And Apple doesn't want a $500 starter mac or the Mini would be $499 as well as opposed to $599.
Most car companies offer an entry-level model close to the $10k mark; it can do everything a car needs to — it can get you from point A to point B reliably and safely, and yet amazingly people still buy more expensive cars. Cars easily two, three, even four times more than that. Hell, the entry-level model isn't even any car manufaturers' number one seller.
If they've got the money, people will spend more for more, whether they need it or not. If the entry level model seems limited or restricted in some way, they'll pay more to overcome those issues. And the iPad, with it's iPhone-based operating system, is indeed very limited. And if people have the money to opt for a $999 MacBook they will. The point of having a crippled base model, besides to drive sales to more expensive models, is to be able to make a sale to those people who don't have a grand to drop on a "real" computer.
Making the iPad a slave device to a Mac that costs twice the price is like making the Toyota Yaris require ownership of a Toyota Prius, for fear that otherwise the Yaris would cannibalize Prius sales. That's just stupid.
In any case, 16GB is too small to be a master device anyway. This is why an aTV with 500GB would be a better master device for the iPod/iPhone/iPad family of slave devices for folks that don't want the hassle of having a real PC.
So make the iPad work with Time Capsule and sell them one of those; they need a wireless router (and should have a backup solution) anyway.
This guy gets it
Nice cherry picking. Even if the iPad was made a master device in software the hardware is too limited to be so. Thus a TC or aTV like mini-server would be desired.
If you have a TC or aTV master then the iPad doesn't need to be a master device.
No, I'm not saying that they're pros, but I do think they do more than check their facebook accounts and surf the web.
Which is a good thing that the iPad does more than facebook and web surfing.
I think most MacBook owners run at least one program that couldn't run on the iPad, and depend heavily on multitasking. Most importantly, they're obviously accepting of spending at least a grand on a computer. Few of them would be willing to step back to an iPad, except for the ones who really do just check their facebook and watch youtube videos.
Name some programs that isn't a pro app that couldn't be on the iPad. The only common one is possibly iMovie due to processing time.
Multitasking is useful but "depend heavily"? Again, you'll have to provide a common example beyond the usual "I wanna run Pandora in the background". Cutting and pasting from Safari into iWork is a possible common use case but likely one that will be worked around by Apple even without generic multitasking.
No, I really like the iPad, and I intend to get one. I just think they're missing a huge new (to Apple, at least) market by limiting the device as an expensive, functionally redundant accessory for people with $500+ burning a hole in their pocket.
This is not a market they are interested in if it costs them any of their current market. They have taken significant steps to make sure cannibalization does not occur as it has for HP, Dell, etc and their netbooks.
I think that's probably a small, small market. The real netbook market are people too cheap to spend a grand on a laptop, and again they were never going to get an Apple because there's no MacBook even close to their $300 price range.
Again, Apple isn't interested in this market or they'd have released a netbook.
Most car companies offer an entry-level model close to the $10k mark; it can do everything a car needs to — it can get you from point A to point B reliably and safely, and yet amazingly people still buy more expensive cars. Cars easily two, three, even four times more than that. Hell, the entry-level model isn't even any car manufaturers' number one seller.
Not Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, etc. Apple does not have a budget brand. Even then, the Mini brand has a $16K car at the bottom end and not a $10K one.
If they've got the money, people will spend more for more, whether they need it or not. If the entry level model seems limited or restricted in some way, they'll pay more to overcome those issues. And the iPad, with it's iPhone-based operating system, is indeed very limited.
Not if it is a 90% solution for 90% of the users.
And if people have the money to opt for a $999 MacBook they will. The point of having a crippled base model, besides to drive sales to more expensive models, is to be able to make a sale to those people who don't have a grand to drop on a "real" computer.
A sale they don't care about and leave to HP and Dell.
Making the iPad a slave device to a Mac that costs twice the price is like making the Toyota Yaris require ownership of a Toyota Prius, for fear that otherwise the Yaris would cannibalize Prius sales. That's just stupid.
Every analogy fails at some point and yours does here. The iPad is a different kind of computing experience and not just a cheaper mac.
So make the iPad work with Time Capsule and sell them one of those; they need a wireless router (and should have a backup solution) anyway.
A TC can be that mini server device that is the master but the aTV is a more compelling device because it can have a large screen for presentations and games. Plus it's always been much more a computing device than the TC and already can serve as its own master without a PC device. It is much simpler to use than a Mini and a dual core A4 can likely outperform the Pentium M it has.
This guy gets it
Nice cherry picking.
First thing I thought…!
A TC can be that mini server device that is the master but the aTV is a more compelling device because it can have a large screen for presentations and games. Plus it's always been much more a computing device than the TC and already can serve as its own master without a PC device. It is much simpler to use than a Mini and a dual core A4 can likely outperform the Pentium M it has.
I think the best answer is for BOTH the Time Capsule & the TV…
Time Capsule handles WiFi & backup of TV/user accounts; TV handles syncing, with a larger HDD is a mass storage device, and is a larger portal for media & games…
Now, getting a front facing camera on the iPad and setting up iChat to allow for an in house video intercom, that is the next step…
Apple really needs to either offer a similar deal to Netflix or partner with them to make it a Netflix enabled device. (Unlikely) Most people do not want to buy a TV show or movie, they just want to watch it once and delete it. A cheap rental model makes far more sense. I can watch unlimited movies AND TV shows for example in one month for less money than buying 5 episodes of the office. Apple TV just does not make any sense to me.
I was thinking about iPad being only a slave device and how to mitigate that within the Apple ecosystem without (excessive) cannibalization of MB and iMac sales.
I came back to thinking about this the other day.
The iPad (and the iPod and the AppleTV) all need a computer to act as the local syncing hub.
The need for this arose for logical reasons - but the need for a gigantic lump of office machinery in the house holds these devices back.
If you want to own a dishwasher, you shouldn't really need to own a generator to run it.
If I want to give an iPad to my parents, why should they need another computer as well?
We talked about AppleTV - or the Airport as being a local hub for the iPad etc.
But what if the "hub" was simply a cloud-based service? What if it was MobileMe?
You subscribe to MobileMe - and get the ability to buy and store music, rent movies, keep your photos and files, run your email server. And so on. The hub is not in your house, it's in the cloud. 100% of the the syncing is done over Wifi. No need for a physical hub at all.
Of course - to pull this off - Apple would need a very big data center.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXSSi1qStA
C.
With a combination of the two (TV & iPad) you can do everything the Google set-top box would do, AND have the added benefit of using the iPad to control the entertainment & surf the web…
With Google developing a set-top box, I think the idea of the TV becoming the Master to the iPads Slave is an even stronger one?
With a combination of the two (TV & iPad) you can do everything the Google set-top box would do, AND have the added benefit of using the iPad to control the entertainment & surf the web?
My predictions are:
aTV to A4 platform in 2010: moderately likely
aTV to A4 platform in 2011: likely.
aTV as game platform in 2010: moderately unlikely
aTV as game platform in 2011: moderately likely
aTV as iPad master: unlikely but possible
My predictions are:
aTV to A4 platform in 2010: moderately likely
aTV to A4 platform in 2011: likely.
aTV as game platform in 2010: moderately unlikely
aTV as game platform in 2011: moderately likely
aTV as iPad master: unlikely but possible
I am coming to the conclusion that the Master/Slave model is not where this is headed.
Users will retain the option of having a local hub machine to sync with.
But that is not a mass-market solution.
A cloud-based solution would mean that the AppleTV, the iPad and even iPods could be truly stand-alone devices.
C.
...Ever realized "master-slave" terms might have some exact meaning ...?
Yes, and she kneels there so nicely next to me. Oh.... Sorry wrong forum.
aTV. A matter of time before it gets an update that takes it to the next level. eg HD, gaming device. I guess it could be a genuine media hub. A game console. A movie device. A 'blue ray' player. See other thread for that debate, I guess. Apple's behind downloads for now.
But isn't that what the Mac is for? And aTV streams plays media from the server Mac? Guess it doesn't have to be the Mac. Guess it could be the aTV. Media is on the net. aTV just needs a big enough hard drive to download and store that content. If the iPad gets so powerful over the next few years...you may question why you may even need an aTV...as you could theoretically miss it out the equation. But the iPad could be the control device for the aTV (a nice 'dumb' Mac for the consumer...which does media storage and playing ok...) so the iPad has a 'heavy' lifting partner...when you want to view something bigger than 10 inches
Time Machine as the back up device.
iPad as the control device.
Sync with your iPhone of course.
4 ducks in a row. All very consumer friendly...and stepping away from what we think of as 'traditional' computers.
I guess it's all speculation until Apple 'does it.'
But you can kinda see where it's all going. I still think the iPad is Star Trek technology. It's nothing short of amazing.
Can't wait until proper hi-def downloads/internet and content creation etc all get finally aligned.
It's like waiting for the planets to become aligned. It's tantalisingly close.
I wonder what this debate will be like in 5 years time.
Will many of this thread and the blue ray thread vs downloads be a mute point?
The iPad in 5 years time...*drools. We may even have an 'iMac Maxi-Pad' in that time. Think of a 15 inch Maxi Pad docked. Wonder if that's what the iMac will become? Hmm. ALl that stroking...and touching...and drooling...reaches for a box of Kleenex.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I am coming to the conclusion that the Master/Slave model is not where this is headed.
Users will retain the option of having a local hub machine to sync with.
But that is not a mass-market solution.
A cloud-based solution would mean that the AppleTV, the iPad and even iPods could be truly stand-alone devices.
C.
You may be on to something ... cloud-based ATV could with a subscription fee to unlimited movies would make it extremely attractive to me. Cloud-based gaming could follow.
You may be on to something ... cloud-based ATV could with a subscription fee to unlimited movies would make it extremely attractive to me. Cloud-based gaming could follow.
In many ways, the AppleTV almost *is* stand alone. You can buy and rent movies and music without having to go near a desktop/laptop computer. You can even update the Apple TV OS - over the air.
The only restriction is that you can't do is have a media library that is larger than the disk space of the device. That's 32Gs on the smaller ATV.
If your iTunes library lived in the cloud (and not on your Mac) that problem would go away. If you want to watch a movie, it would not matter if it was cached locally or not. You'd just do an on-demand re-download of your content. To any of your networked devices.
With a system like this - the wifi enabled AppleTV, iPod, and iPad could be much more autonomous. You really could give an iPad to your parents, without having to give them another computer to go with it.
C.