"Indisputably?" Are you serious? Flash makes this tablet better than the iPad?
[/laughing]
Wow, next time you try to think, reconsider. When HP gets done with this thing, it will probably have a battery life of an older digital camera. Click. Flash. Done. Reload. Adding Flash is not the end game for the iPad, sorry.
-360
It makes it better at surfing the web. "from a pure web surfing experience, the HP is indisputably superior." That is what was said.
Some of you are forgetting that it runs full Windows with HP's touch technology grafted on. Yuck.
iPad-Killer device fails on interface alone. Another tablet to throw onto the pile.
Yep, right next to the piles of the HP, 'Dull' and Gateway, all-in-one iMac knockoffs, creaky/plastic $1,000+ PC laptops and the myriad of MP3 players designed to compete with the iPods!
going by today's market cap yes. but there's a difference between being today's darling on the stock exchange, and being a mammoth company that does 2x in annual revenue. Apple isn't beating down HP in anything. HP is a mammoth.
Market cap represents the valuation of the company today, looking at revenue only represents the previous quarter sales but it does not indicate the power the company has. Besides that looking at revenue is pretty pointless, when it's profit that matters. If your costs exceed your revenue then you have a negative profit. HP has more revenue than Apple, but Apple's net earnings are now more than HP's and seem likely to increase even more this year.
LOL - which part of 'get my hands on' did you not understand? A marketing video <> hands on. I am withholding judgement on the iPad also, for the same reason
One point seems to missed so far.... who's going to buy an HP Slate?
*raises hand*
It's a better advert than Apple's too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm
We've seen MP3 and video players with more features than any iPod, yet they silently disappear when sales fall flat. Only Apple has the ecosystem, dedicated developers and content distrobution system required to sustain a product through it's initial launch and into a healthy product lifecycle.
Except here the HP Slate can run itunes so it gets all the content from there + every other store online + the Flash content + ebooks not tied to the app store and 140,000 App Store apps don't come close to what you get on Windows in terms of usefulness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sticknick
Why do I want a small device to run Windows 7? I already have a laptop running Windows 7.
Would you take that laptop on vacation or on a commute to work or to a presentation? People will buy it for the same reasons that tens of millions of people have bought netbooks and this one has an edge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321
Good riddance, Flash. Flash discriminates against disabled people
That's like saying stairs discriminate against disabled people. It's the content providers who don't provide alternatives who discriminate.
That is specious. The 'Pad uses a 1930's era aspect ratio, despite pretty much every other new screened device using the normal 16:9 aspect ratio.
Old tech is NOT rejected by Apple. "Old tech" is instead an excuse for the gullible.
Apple uses both old and new tech.
Saying the iPad uses old technology simply because it happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio screen is incredibly short-sighted. Which is better, create a multi-function device that uses a screen ratio that's better suited for the various things that device can do, or create a multi-function device with a screen ratio best suited for only one or two of it's multiple functions? I agree with Apple's choice of aspect ratio and that in no way makes it "old technology".
All this competition is good as it will force Apple to continue to innovate. The flip side is that I wonder how many of these companies that are introducing their slate devices will be around in 2 years?
You are changing your own argument too. You said browsing on the HP Slate will be "indisputably superior", not the most complete. If the iPad is better at browsing the non flash portion of the web (which is most of it), how can the HP Slate be considered "indisputably superior"?
I watch video on news sites every day. If the 'Pad can't handle daily web surfing tasks, it is fatally flawed. Indeed, for most non-geeks, the 'Pad will suck to surf the 'web.
"Honey, why can't I get that website?"
"Oh, that's not a bug, it is a feature. You don't want to see that website. They sholuld have used H.236XZ technology, but me and Steve don't like Adobe, so you're better off this way. We are fighting a holy war here against Adobe, because they are lazy!!"
"Ummmm, it works fine on Sally's HP tablet. I thought you made me get this one because it is indisputably better to surf the 'net with?"
"Naw, only geeks care about flash! You are better off without it!"
"This is the last time I ever let you talk me into getting an Apple anything..."
Saying the iPad uses old technology simply because it happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio screen is incredibly short-sighted. Which is better, create a multi-function device that uses a screen ratio that's better suited for the various things that device can do, or create a multi-function device with a screen ratio best suited for only one or two of it's multiple functions? I agree with Apple's choice of aspect ratio and that in no way makes it "old technology".
That guy is such a troll yet he claims he isn't despite calling an aspect ratio "1930s technology" and saying that 16:9 is "normal". Is someone paying him to make these douchebag comments or is he really that mentally deficient to that an in vogue aspect ratio is more important than usability?
lol nice one...to be honest, I hate HP. Not only do I hate their products as a consumer, but they're a competitor to the company I work for, albeit more of a gnat on the windshield...
Still, that doesn't remove the fact that they have the highest market share of desktops and laptops in the industry, and are a force to be reckoned with.
And to the person that said revenue meant nothing...I'm sorry, I disagree. Market share swings daily based on the whim of a non financial based market, where stocks are bought and sold more due to psychology and manipulation than actual financial strength. Revenue shows the strength of your sales and the market reach you have. Margins can dip in an instant depending on product cycle.
YES! Give me a full OS made for a keyboard, no matter what 'touch' controls they have it's still made to be used with a keyboard, and throw flash on it, that will be an awesome experience for oh say 2 hours till the battery is toast.
Write a skin for apps to be used with a tablet or write the entire program again to work on a cut down version of an OS. Which do you think is harder and takes more time?
Equally browse the net restricted to HTML that is written for a mouse or have Silverlight and Flash written for touch and mouse.
An interface is just a thin bit of an app that's easily changed, a back end is a lot harder. Why split into multiple OS's when you can keep it all the same and reuse you code. Multiple OS's just means multiple amounts of work.
Margins can dip in an instant depending on product cycle.
Which is why profit, not revenue, is the more important measure. Just look at Apple in the handset market. They have a very small marketshare yet make the 2nd highest revenue and the highest profit, which is why they are "a force to be reckoned with." If revenue or marketshare were more important you have to wonder why Apple chooses not to license their OS or make $400 notebooks to best their competitors in those areas. Same goes for every other type of business.
Agreed, Apple was right about the iPhone, no creaky moving parts, no physical keyboard, no replaceable battery that takes up room, no Flash eating up your battery and minimal buttons. Oh, and lastly don't let the d*ckheads at Verizon control the handset! .
Yes, they got everything right. Except the part about making phone calls. Dropped two of em yesterday. You're the best AT&T. If I were Apple I would give you ALL of my business.
Comments
[laughing]
"Indisputably?" Are you serious? Flash makes this tablet better than the iPad?
[/laughing]
Wow, next time you try to think, reconsider. When HP gets done with this thing, it will probably have a battery life of an older digital camera. Click. Flash. Done. Reload. Adding Flash is not the end game for the iPad, sorry.
-360
It makes it better at surfing the web. "from a pure web surfing experience, the HP is indisputably superior." That is what was said.
Do you dispute that?
It makes it better at surfing the web. That is what was said. Do you dispute that?
Actually it only makes it better at surfing the portion of the web that requires flash.
Look a little closer. The HP is the normal aspect ratio, while Apple chose the outmoded 4:3 aspect ratio. The looks aren't even close.
I think the iPad would look weird with a 16:9 screen. Now if it was just for watching movies, that would be a different story.
Some of you are forgetting that it runs full Windows with HP's touch technology grafted on. Yuck.
iPad-Killer device fails on interface alone. Another tablet to throw onto the pile.
Yep, right next to the piles of the HP, 'Dull' and Gateway, all-in-one iMac knockoffs, creaky/plastic $1,000+ PC laptops and the myriad of MP3 players designed to compete with the iPods!
going by today's market cap yes. but there's a difference between being today's darling on the stock exchange, and being a mammoth company that does 2x in annual revenue. Apple isn't beating down HP in anything. HP is a mammoth.
Market cap represents the valuation of the company today, looking at revenue only represents the previous quarter sales but it does not indicate the power the company has. Besides that looking at revenue is pretty pointless, when it's profit that matters. If your costs exceed your revenue then you have a negative profit. HP has more revenue than Apple, but Apple's net earnings are now more than HP's and seem likely to increase even more this year.
I'm disputing it. Like Steve said, Flash is old technology.
That is specious. The 'Pad uses a 1930's era aspect ratio, despite pretty much every other new screened device using the normal 16:9 aspect ratio.
Old tech is NOT rejected by Apple. "Old tech" is instead an excuse for the gullible.
Apple uses both old and new tech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3MSjwUrxT0
LOL - which part of 'get my hands on' did you not understand? A marketing video <> hands on. I am withholding judgement on the iPad also, for the same reason
I'm having trouble following you, would you care to explain?
Words mean whatever folks here want them to mean; no more, no less.
Did you know that a one-word answer is not "terse" if Steve gives it? And that "the whole internet" does not include the numerous flash web sites?
Its fun to deny reality be redefining it.
One point seems to missed so far.... who's going to buy an HP Slate?
*raises hand*
It's a better advert than Apple's too.
We've seen MP3 and video players with more features than any iPod, yet they silently disappear when sales fall flat. Only Apple has the ecosystem, dedicated developers and content distrobution system required to sustain a product through it's initial launch and into a healthy product lifecycle.
Except here the HP Slate can run itunes so it gets all the content from there + every other store online + the Flash content + ebooks not tied to the app store and 140,000 App Store apps don't come close to what you get on Windows in terms of usefulness.
Why do I want a small device to run Windows 7? I already have a laptop running Windows 7.
Would you take that laptop on vacation or on a commute to work or to a presentation? People will buy it for the same reasons that tens of millions of people have bought netbooks and this one has an edge.
Good riddance, Flash. Flash discriminates against disabled people
That's like saying stairs discriminate against disabled people. It's the content providers who don't provide alternatives who discriminate.
HP is a mammoth.
You said it!
We all know what happened there....
That is specious. The 'Pad uses a 1930's era aspect ratio, despite pretty much every other new screened device using the normal 16:9 aspect ratio.
Old tech is NOT rejected by Apple. "Old tech" is instead an excuse for the gullible.
Apple uses both old and new tech.
Saying the iPad uses old technology simply because it happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio screen is incredibly short-sighted. Which is better, create a multi-function device that uses a screen ratio that's better suited for the various things that device can do, or create a multi-function device with a screen ratio best suited for only one or two of it's multiple functions? I agree with Apple's choice of aspect ratio and that in no way makes it "old technology".
All this competition is good as it will force Apple to continue to innovate. The flip side is that I wonder how many of these companies that are introducing their slate devices will be around in 2 years?
Seems it's the other way around:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31745
But you're getting warmer with your second sentence.
You are changing your own argument too. You said browsing on the HP Slate will be "indisputably superior", not the most complete. If the iPad is better at browsing the non flash portion of the web (which is most of it), how can the HP Slate be considered "indisputably superior"?
I watch video on news sites every day. If the 'Pad can't handle daily web surfing tasks, it is fatally flawed. Indeed, for most non-geeks, the 'Pad will suck to surf the 'web.
"Honey, why can't I get that website?"
"Oh, that's not a bug, it is a feature. You don't want to see that website. They sholuld have used H.236XZ technology, but me and Steve don't like Adobe, so you're better off this way. We are fighting a holy war here against Adobe, because they are lazy!!"
"Ummmm, it works fine on Sally's HP tablet. I thought you made me get this one because it is indisputably better to surf the 'net with?"
"Naw, only geeks care about flash! You are better off without it!"
"This is the last time I ever let you talk me into getting an Apple anything..."
Saying the iPad uses old technology simply because it happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio screen is incredibly short-sighted. Which is better, create a multi-function device that uses a screen ratio that's better suited for the various things that device can do, or create a multi-function device with a screen ratio best suited for only one or two of it's multiple functions? I agree with Apple's choice of aspect ratio and that in no way makes it "old technology".
That guy is such a troll yet he claims he isn't despite calling an aspect ratio "1930s technology" and saying that 16:9 is "normal". Is someone paying him to make these douchebag comments or is he really that mentally deficient to that an in vogue aspect ratio is more important than usability?
You said it!
We all know what happened there....
lol nice one...to be honest, I hate HP. Not only do I hate their products as a consumer, but they're a competitor to the company I work for, albeit more of a gnat on the windshield...
Still, that doesn't remove the fact that they have the highest market share of desktops and laptops in the industry, and are a force to be reckoned with.
And to the person that said revenue meant nothing...I'm sorry, I disagree. Market share swings daily based on the whim of a non financial based market, where stocks are bought and sold more due to psychology and manipulation than actual financial strength. Revenue shows the strength of your sales and the market reach you have. Margins can dip in an instant depending on product cycle.
YES! Give me a full OS made for a keyboard, no matter what 'touch' controls they have it's still made to be used with a keyboard, and throw flash on it, that will be an awesome experience for oh say 2 hours till the battery is toast.
Write a skin for apps to be used with a tablet or write the entire program again to work on a cut down version of an OS. Which do you think is harder and takes more time?
Equally browse the net restricted to HTML that is written for a mouse or have Silverlight and Flash written for touch and mouse.
An interface is just a thin bit of an app that's easily changed, a back end is a lot harder. Why split into multiple OS's when you can keep it all the same and reuse you code. Multiple OS's just means multiple amounts of work.
Margins can dip in an instant depending on product cycle.
Which is why profit, not revenue, is the more important measure. Just look at Apple in the handset market. They have a very small marketshare yet make the 2nd highest revenue and the highest profit, which is why they are "a force to be reckoned with." If revenue or marketshare were more important you have to wonder why Apple chooses not to license their OS or make $400 notebooks to best their competitors in those areas. Same goes for every other type of business.
Actually it only makes it better at surfing the portion of the web that requires flash.
What part of the web is the 'Pad superior at?
Agreed, Apple was right about the iPhone, no creaky moving parts, no physical keyboard, no replaceable battery that takes up room, no Flash eating up your battery and minimal buttons. Oh, and lastly don't let the d*ckheads at Verizon control the handset!
Yes, they got everything right. Except the part about making phone calls. Dropped two of em yesterday. You're the best AT&T. If I were Apple I would give you ALL of my business.