Australian pricing is weird a US99c App is $A1.19, a US99c song is $A1.69...
...go figure.
If it's related to the value of the $US on the date of release then it shouldn't be too much difference as $US1 = $A1.09 at todays rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmofee
i was originally dismissive when i first read the reports. now, im seriously considering it. there's one thing im missing, which is the ability to transfer files from my handycam while im away. everything else wouldnt be that bad. now we have to wait for an announcement in the australian shores, and how much extra they're going to cost as well :P
Australian pricing is weird a US99c App is $A1.19, a US99c song is $A1.69...
...go figure.
If it's related to the value of the $US on the date of release then it shouldn't be too much difference as $US1 = $A1.09 at todays rates.
the price of apple hardware is always that little bit more. some are saying on sites the average price of the entry model will be around 650 australian... wouldnt surprise me..
Read again. Apple is going after the "netbook" market.
If apple was going after the netbook market, they'd be making a netbook. But they're not. They specifically chose not to make a netbook. They chose to not enter the netbook market.
Netbooks and tablets have nothing in common besides perhaps price. It is baffling how the two concepts are perceived as being linked. It is a meme that simply makes no sense, none at all.
If apple was going after the netbook market, they'd be making a netbook. But they're not. They specifically chose not to make a netbook. They chose to not enter the netbook market.
Netbooks and tablets have nothing in common besides perhaps price. It is baffling how the two concepts are perceived as being linked. It is a meme that simply makes no sense, none at all.
If you ask yourself what the purpose of a netbook is, I think you'll find that the answer is exactly the same as for the iPad. Ergo, they are linked.
If apple was going after the netbook market, they'd be making a netbook. But they're not. They specifically chose not to make a netbook. They chose to not enter the netbook market.
Netbooks and tablets have nothing in common besides perhaps price. It is baffling how the two concepts are perceived as being linked. It is a meme that simply makes no sense, none at all.
Nope, read the rest of my posts to understand what the "netbook" market consists of and what Apple thinks about it.
Consider this: In 1984, Apple went after the supposed "personal computer" market by making a Mac. You may look back and think it was obvious, but if you were alive then, you would have heard all the PC (and even Apple II) fans who derided the Mac for not having: a larger display, a hard disk drive slots, and a full keyboard (with function and numeric keys). The Mac had no spreadsheet app, and MacWrite had 1/4 of the functionality of a good PC word processor. The Mac was a toy they said.
And in 2007, Apple went after the supposed "smartphone" market by making an iPhone. You may think it was obvious, but you should consider the many Nokia N-series smartphone fans who derided the iPhone for not having 3G, GPS, downloadable apps, removable battery, keyboard, 5MP camera, videocamera - all of which were present on the N95 circa 2007.
Without a doubt, Apple changed both those "markets" (though they haven't dominated them but that's another story).
Just like before, Apple is going after the "netbook" market without making what one normally considers a netbook to be.
If you ask yourself what the purpose of a netbook is, I think you'll find that the answer is exactly the same as for the iPad. Ergo, they are linked.
Not at all. In fact, iPads are only similar to netbooks in regard to price. That is where the similarity ends. The purpose of a netbook is to provide a cheap computer, or in some cases, more specifically, a cheap laptop. It would be one hell of a stretch to call "cheap" the goal of the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Nope, read the rest of my posts to understand what the "netbook" market consists of and what Apple thinks about it.
Consider this: In 1984, Apple went after the supposed "personal computer" market by making a Mac. You may look back and think it was obvious, but if you were alive then, you would have heard all the PC (and even Apple II) fans who derided the Mac for not having: a larger display, a hard disk drive slots, and a full keyboard (with function and numeric keys). The Mac had no spreadsheet app, and MacWrite had 1/4 of the functionality of a good PC word processor. The Mac was a toy they said.
And in 2007, Apple went after the supposed "smartphone" market by making an iPhone. You may think it was obvious, but you should consider the many Nokia N-series smartphone fans who derided the iPhone for not having 3G, GPS, downloadable apps, removable battery, keyboard, 5MP camera, videocamera - all of which were present on the N95 circa 2007.
Without a doubt, Apple changed both those "markets" (though they haven't dominated them but that's another story).
Just like before, Apple is going after the "netbook" market without making what one normally considers a netbook to be.
That seems like a whole bunch of mumbo-jumbo and double-speak to avoid having to admit a minor error in communicating a point about iPads. You're busy defending tangential points that aren't even related, let alone in dispute.
Put simply, Apple is not getting into the "netbook market". They are not making a netbook. Nor are they making anything remotely resembling a netbook. Apple has been quick to stress this point. They purposefully chose to stay out of the netbook market and instead decided to address a different computing category. Steve has mentioned it on a few occasions. And if I recall correctly, so has Cook during the quarterly conference calls.
An analogy:
Laptops, desktops, and pocket computers (smart phones) aren't the same thing. Similarly, the iPad is also in a separate category. It is a tablet computer.
Granted, there will be competition between netbooks and tablets. But fixating on the two, as if they are somehow linked, is counter productive. They are no more linked than any of the other computer categories. If netbooks are to be compared to anything, they should be compared to laptops.
Not at all. In fact, iPads are only similar to netbooks in regard to price. That is where the similarity ends. The purpose of a netbook is to provide a cheap computer, or in some cases, more specifically, a cheap laptop. It would be one hell of a stretch to call "cheap" the goal of the iPad.
That seems like a whole bunch of mumbo-jumbo and double-speak to avoid having to admit a minor error in communicating a point about iPads. You're busy defending tangential points that aren't even related, let alone in dispute.
I don't see any minor error. Apple is going after the people who were previously interested in netbooks. I'm not sure what you call that other than the "netbook" market.
And in doing so, they came up with something that doesn't look like netbooks. Just like when they went after personal computer consumers, and came up with something that didn't look like a PC of that era. And when they went after smartphone consumers, and came up with something that didn't look like a smartphone of that era. No mumbo-jumbo but a direct response.
Quote:
Put simply, Apple is not getting into the "netbook market". They are not making a netbook. Nor are they making anything remotely resembling a netbook. Apple has been quick to stress this point.
Did I say that Apple is making a netbook? Nope, I didn't. I did say that Apple said they don't make junk.
Quote:
They purposefully chose to stay out of the netbook market and instead decided to address a different computing category. Steve has mentioned it on a few occasions. And if I recall correctly, so has Cook during the quarterly conference calls.
So why did Jobs and Cook talk about having "ideas" (that we know today is the iPad) every time in response to netbook questions? Maybe, because they are linked.
Quote:
Granted, there will be competition between netbooks and tablets. But fixating on the two, as if they are somehow linked, is counter productive. They are no more linked than any of the other computer categories. If netbooks are to be compared to anything, they should be compared to laptops.
I'm not fixated on the two. But when people say that Apple is not going after the netbook market, I think they are very wrong. They are. They are going after most (not all) of the same people who would be interested in a netbook, and going after them with a product that looks very different but meets the same use cases (that is, surf the web (facebook, twitter, RSS), exchange emails, watch videos, maybe read books, play games).
And I already said there is a small percentage of the netbook market that really wants a full Windows notebook in a smaller and cheaper package because they need to do everything on it that they could do on a notebook (content creation, manipulate files, etc). Those are the only people in the "netbook" market that Apple is not directly going after, because Apple doesn't know how to build such a thing that isn't junk for less than $500. Apple's only answer for those people is the MacBook Air, and it costs way more.
Apple showed three categories of mobile devices. The iPhone/iPod touch category. The iPad category. The MacBook category. In Apple's view, which category is the netbook category, since there is no fourth category?
You kinda say it is the notebook category. I'd agree if that was the real reason why most people bought netbooks - they wanted the notebook-computing experience in a smaller and cheaper package. My nephew wanted that and it was a FAIL when it mattered most (his fault for violating Windows rule #1: not testing before projecting).
But I'd bet at least half the people who bought netbooks have no use for this notebook-computing experience - they just want to access the web (Facebook, Twitter, RSS, etc), respond to emails, watch some video, maybe read some books. These are my three nieces, who still find it slow to start-up, slow to play video, etc. Though they bought netbooks, do these people really fit into the notebook-computing experience category?
Yes, I read your other posts.
But to answer your question, yes netbooks are laptops. That is precisely what they are in both form and function.
There will be overlap between tablet usage scenarios and laptop usage scenarios. But that is true to a degree for all of the computing form factors. Fixating on how netbooks relate to tablets will lead to rather spurious conclusions.
It is my belief that people are mistakenly conflating netbooks with the iPad simply because they are both new computing form factors that happen to be about the same size and price. "New" in a mass-appeal sense that is. The form factors have both been around for many years already. But size and price don't alone dictate who will use devices and for what purposes. In the case of the iPad, the touch interface, lack of a keyboard, and requirement to be held while in use... are what will define the use scenarios and market for the device.
The iPad is intended as an auxiliary device to supplement a user's existing computing eco-system, a device that will be used for just a subset of a user's computing needs. On the other hand, netbooks are laptops that happen to be inexpensive but offer a full computing experience.
Comparisons between the two can be useful. But fixation on the two as if they are more related than the other form factors, would seem to be counter productive and lead one to derive incorrect conclusions.
Quite true. But also pertinent is that it can't be used as a stand-alone device (yet). As an auxiliary computer, it won't appeal to people who are looking for a cheap way to fulfill their computing needs.
I'm not fixated on the two. But when people say that Apple is not going after the netbook market, I think they are very wrong. They are. They are going after most (not all) of the same people who would be interested in a netbook, and going after them with a product that looks very different but meets the same use cases (that is, surf the web (facebook, twitter, RSS), exchange emails, watch videos, maybe read books, play games).
Looks like we'll just have to disagree about if Apple is going after the "netbook market". My last comment on that is that the netbook market hasn't proven terribly profitable. It is precisely the type of commodity market that Apple has never gone after. That is why Apple redirects netbook questions to the type of new computing hardware they have chosen to pursue, not because the two are related.
As for usage scenarios. Upon using a tablet computer, the first thing one discovers is that usage scenarios are completely different than with laptops or desktops.
Another lovely car analogy. Mid priced motorcycles and cheap compact cars are roughly the same size and price but have drastically different uses. They're both smaller and less expensive than a typical sedan, truck or SUV. Yeah, I know that's a stretch. But it does help to convey just how different tablets are from laptops.
Size and price are not what define the iPad. The form factor and GUI do. They define what will be considered an equivalent product and netbooks don't fall into that category.
Not at all. In fact, iPads are only similar to netbooks in regard to price. That is where the similarity ends. The purpose of a netbook is to provide a cheap computer, or in some cases, more specifically, a cheap laptop. It would be one hell of a stretch to call "cheap" the goal of the iPad.
Being cheap is not the purpose of a Netbook, but rather a byproduct of it's form. Half a computer costs half as much. The Netbook exists because people fell in love with the idea of an ultra-compact, lightweight computer they can carry with them without feeling like they're carrying a computer. It's slow, lacking in hardware, but can perform basic computing tasks like web browsing, email, and instant chat without issue. Sound familiar? Yeah, the iPad is Apple's solution to the netbook market.
Looks like we'll just have to disagree about if Apple is going after the "netbook market". My last comment on that is that the netbook market hasn't proven terribly profitable. It is precisely the type of commodity market that Apple has never gone after. That is why Apple redirects netbook questions to the type of new computing hardware they have chosen to pursue, not because the two are related.
What some folks seem to forget is that there are two netbook markets. One for cheap notebooks and one for auxiliary computing devices. Apple IS going after the netbook maket but like the notebook and desktop markets, only the most profitable segment.
Some netbooks are insanely profitable. Like those $700-$800 ones. With Atoms? Wha?
Quote:
As for usage scenarios. Upon using a tablet computer, the first thing one discovers is that usage scenarios are completely different than with laptops or desktops.
No, the high level usage scenarios are largely the same since they typically do not describe implementation. A usage scenario is like "Manually visiting a new web page (no hyperlink)" is derived from the overarching Use Case (web surfing). As such the steps are along the lines of
"The user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser"
"The system opens the web browser and presents saved links (aka bookmarks) and the ability to enter a new URL"
"The user selects a new web address by manually entering a URL"
...
The scenario is identical for both tablets and netbooks. The implementation differs...
Quote:
Size and price are not what define the iPad. The form factor and GUI do. They define what will be considered an equivalent product and netbooks don't fall into that category.
Tablet netbooks certainly could given the UI metaphors could be identical with the exception of having a physical keyboard vs a virtual one. There are several on the market in the same price range.
Are you saying that the Blackberry and iPhone are not in the same category because the blackberry has a keyboard (form factor) and different UI metaphors (key/scroll vs touch) than the iPhone? Because that's about the same level of difference between a high end netbook and an iPad.
Certainly Apple isn't going up against bottom end free phone market with the iPhone. But they sure do target the high end smart phone market.
Certainly Apple isn't going up against the bottom end netbook market with the iPad. But they sure do target the high end secondary computing/executive netbook market.
Anyone that considered the Viao P is going to seriously consider the iPad as an alternative. Same use cases, same demographic, same market and market category.
No, the high level usage scenarios are largely the same since they typically do not describe implementation. A usage scenario is like "Manually visiting a new web page (no hyperlink)" is derived from the overarching Use Case (web surfing). As such the steps are along the lines of
"The user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser"
"The system opens the web browser and presents saved links (aka bookmarks) and the ability to enter a new URL"
"The user selects a new web address by manually entering a URL"
The scenario is identical for both tablets and netbooks. The implementation differs...
...
Are you saying that the Blackberry and iPhone are not in the same category because the blackberry has a keyboard (form factor) and different UI metaphors (key/scroll vs touch) than the iPhone? Because that's about the same level of difference between a high end netbook and an iPad.
Have you ever actually owned or used a tablet for an extended period of time? Not trying to be antagonistic, just wondering. The reason why I ask will hopefully be apparent in the next paragraph.
It has been my experience (and observation of others) that tablet usage is indeed quite different than desktop or laptop usage. The example given above misses the defining characteristics of usage scenarios. The scenario should not begin with "the user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser". Instead, it begins with "user sits down on couch and picks up tablet while waiting for family to join him for a movie.". Or, "user spoons cereal into mouth while using other hand to interact with tablet resting on breakfast table."
The tablet form dictates to a great degree, when and how people use tablet computers. The GUI helps define typical usage scenarios, but the form (screen size, input hardware, etc) also has a massive impact on actual usage.
It is the form, that defines the iPad and appropriate comparison devices. There is a massive difference in usage between tablets and traditional computers. Tablets and netbooks are so different that fixating on comparisons between the two is just baffling. It has been my observation that nearly everyone who has actually used tablets for an appreciable period of time has come to the same conclusion. They are no more a substitue for netbooks (laptops) than are pocket computers. Sure, iPhone users may use email less on their home computer. But iphones rightfully weren't defined as "going after the laptop or desktop market." The same will be true of the iPad. Or at least not in it's first incarnation.
It has been my experience (and observation of others) that tablet usage is indeed quite different than desktop or laptop usage. The example given above misses the defining characteristics of usage scenarios. The scenario should not begin with "the user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser". Instead, it begins with "user sits down on couch and picks up tablet while waiting for family to join him for a movie.". Or, "user spoons cereal into mouth while using other hand to interact with tablet resting on breakfast table." ...
You've expanded the use case a bit to include more info about the scenario, which is fine.
Comparatively then, from my observations, the usage scenario for most people who own netbooks is sit down on a chair/floor/bed/couch at various places (airport, restaurant, convention center, park, living room, bedroom, airplane, etc); place netbook on lap (or table if available); flip open netbook, ...
This portion of the netbook scenario is also included in the tablet usage scenarios, so I would conclude that the tablet usage scenarios are broader than that for the netbook, since the tablet could also be used standing up, and potentially could be more social (not totally sold on this one). [Note, however, the netbook use case can also include more significant content creation, though most netbook owners don't actually use it for that.]
So, tablet and netbook products have overlapping usage scenarios.
Have you ever actually owned or used a tablet for an extended period of time? Not trying to be antagonistic, just wondering. The reason why I ask will hopefully be apparent in the next paragraph.
Yes, I have used tablets quite a bit since 2002. I have a motion tablet (slate), a ruggedized slate, a Panasonic Toughbook tablet (convertible), a handful of UMPC, kneeboards, PDAs that run a variety of linux, winCE, and other mobile/semi-mobile OSs.
I also have a variety of pen based machines (IBM TransNote, Seiko Smartpad, etc) and a couple touch input devices (DiamondTouch, etc) that are prior to 2002.
Quote:
It has been my experience (and observation of others) that tablet usage is indeed quite different than desktop or laptop usage. The example given above misses the defining characteristics of usage scenarios. The scenario should not begin with "the user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser". Instead, it begins with "user sits down on couch and picks up tablet while waiting for family to join him for a movie.". Or, "user spoons cereal into mouth while using other hand to interact with tablet resting on breakfast table."
You can include user context such as sitting on a couch or using the device one handed (heh) but not the "pick up tablet" part without artificially constraining your implementation possibilities. This is typically not desireable during design phase where use scenarios are employed.
If you have a defining characteristic of usage scenarios then perhaps you should state:
1) The context of your use of the term (RUP, Agile, something else)
2) The actual defining characteristics.
Simply saying that netbooks don't meet the usage scenario because you used the term TABLET in the usage scenario isn't useful in trying to persuade that the two cannot meet the same use cases and compete in the same market space.
Tablet interaction CAN be different from traditional computing. Certainly OneNote isn't very usable with a mouse. On the other hand it is hard to argue that WinXP or Win7 Tablet PC Edition is very well optimized for either pen or multitouch UI interaction given they are WIMP based. In fact, the cynical would point out they aren't much more than normal windows with a couple extra apps and some UI support stuck in there.
Quote:
The tablet form dictates to a great degree, when and how people use tablet computers.
No, the tablet form dictates some of the limitations for the OS and UI designer. The UI itself constrains how users interact with tablet computers. A Win7 or Linux iPad is going to be significantly different in interaction paradigm than with the Apple OSX iPad.
Quote:
The GUI helps define typical usage scenarios, but the form (screen size, input hardware, etc) also has a massive impact on actual usage.
Yes. But that doesn't say that two different products that meets the same need aren't in the same category.
Quote:
It is the form, that defines the iPad and appropriate comparison devices. There is a massive difference in usage between tablets and traditional computers. Tablets and netbooks are so different that fixating on comparisons between the two is just baffling.
Then simply descibe how the Blackberry does not differ in the same way from the iPhone that the netbook differs from the iPad.
Blackberry, Netbook = physical keyboard, no touchscreen, traditional UI
iPhone, iPad = virtual keyboard, touchscreen, touch based UI
Blackberry and iPhone = about the same size, cost and general capabilities
Netbook and iPad = about the same size, cost and general capabilities
Quote:
It has been my observation that nearly everyone who has actually used tablets for an appreciable period of time has come to the same conclusion.
You mean that they are suboptimal except as convertibles? More or less. Pray tell how many tablets you have used and for how long?
Quote:
They are no more a substitue for netbooks (laptops) than are pocket computers.
Other than the tablet netbooks and a few UMPCs few are considered netbook substitutes as much as notebook substitutes.
This is ignoring the scads of tablets that appeared at CES this year which only really recently appeared and still remains to be seen how they pan out. I'm thinking not so great for things like the HP Slate based on my slate experiences.
Quote:
Sure, iPhone users may use email less on their home computer. But iphones rightfully weren't defined as "going after the laptop or desktop market." The same will be true of the iPad. Or at least not in it's first incarnation.
Which is why I was very clear in pointing out that the netbook market has two segments and that Apple was targetting the higher end segment that buys netbooks as secondary computing devices. A point you clearly avoided...
I find the back and forth above interesting because it gets at a, if not the, central point about a device like the iPad-- there's a point at which changing the physical interaction changes the nature of the experience.
A lot of the discussions about "what the iPad is for" assume a difference in degree: easier, lighter, possibly faster-- then go on to argue that these differences are insufficient to differentiate the iPad from cheaper, more ubiquitous netbooks, which have various other advantages (real keyboard, full desktop OS, Flash, etc.).
I would argue that the iPad represents a difference in kind-- that a well integrated touch device of appropriate ergonomics can't be causally dismissed just because it "does computing stuff just like a netbook."
It was easy to argue that the iPhone didn't do anything more than existing smartphones, it just did it with fancy animations and "slickness" (as if that were a cheat, somehow). As we know, the particulars of the iPhone's UI, ecosystem and hardware in fact ushered in a new era of ubiquitous mobile computing, and these changes are still accelerating. I believe that happened because the iPhone presented consumers with a new kind of experience, and that such experiences are not well described by "open browser type URL" checklists.
IMO the iPad will present another, new, user experience, and any talk of "does the same stuff as this machine I have here" just misses the point. Human beings aren't about use scenarios, they're about pleasure and reward and emotional responses to stuff they do. If the experience feels different, it is different. If it feels entirely different, like "something I've never done before", then for the purposes of a discussion about people and the devices they use, then it is in fact an entirely different thing --no matter how many dry points of congruity with previous devices one might point out.
I would argue that the iPad represents a difference in kind-- that a well integrated touch device of appropriate ergonomics can't be causally dismissed just because it "does computing stuff just like a netbook."
I think that it is more accurate to say that the iPad is far more likely to meet some of the uses that folks intended to be filled by a netbook than a netbook because of the ease of use of the platform.
Worded differently, it doesn't mean that the iPad IS A netbook but it does mean it IS targetted squarely at those users that have purchased netbooks but have been, thus far, poorly served. Meaning it isn't a new market but yet another one that Apple has seen a way to profitably address in a new fashion.
I think that it is more accurate to say that the iPad is far more likely to meet some of the uses that folks intended to be filled by a netbook than a netbook because of the ease of use of the platform.
Worded differently, it doesn't mean that the iPad IS A netbook but it does mean it IS targetted squarely at those users that have purchased netbooks but have been, thus far, poorly served. Meaning it isn't a new market but yet another one that Apple has seen a way to profitably address in a new fashion.
Yeah, certainly there's a semantic thicket here that would be easy to debate endlessly, but it seems to me that, again to use the example of the iPhone, that there are now millions of people routinely doing things in ways that they never did before (indeed, in ways that they never imagined were even possible to do) because the iPhone made those things accessible.
For those people, the iPhone and follow on devices from other manufacturers represent an entirely new kind of device, even though strictly speaking you have done most of what you use the iPhone for before it existed. The newness resides in how, exactly, the device integrates with one's life, not if the stock categories of what it does.
So I would argue that the iPad potentially represents a "new" kind of thing, not because it can surf the web a little more conveniently and such, but because that particular combination of hardware and software and form factor and ecosystem will afford people opportunities to relate to it differently and discover new ways of doing things.
Obviously we may disagree on the significance of "new ways" which is admittedly a bit amorphous, but IMO it always gets back to one's emotional response to how that thing fits in with how one goes about living.
Comments
...go figure.
If it's related to the value of the $US on the date of release then it shouldn't be too much difference as $US1 = $A1.09 at todays rates.
i was originally dismissive when i first read the reports. now, im seriously considering it. there's one thing im missing, which is the ability to transfer files from my handycam while im away. everything else wouldnt be that bad. now we have to wait for an announcement in the australian shores, and how much extra they're going to cost as well :P
Australian pricing is weird a US99c App is $A1.19, a US99c song is $A1.69...
...go figure.
If it's related to the value of the $US on the date of release then it shouldn't be too much difference as $US1 = $A1.09 at todays rates.
the price of apple hardware is always that little bit more. some are saying on sites the average price of the entry model will be around 650 australian... wouldnt surprise me..
Read again. Apple is going after the "netbook" market.
If apple was going after the netbook market, they'd be making a netbook. But they're not. They specifically chose not to make a netbook. They chose to not enter the netbook market.
Netbooks and tablets have nothing in common besides perhaps price. It is baffling how the two concepts are perceived as being linked. It is a meme that simply makes no sense, none at all.
If apple was going after the netbook market, they'd be making a netbook. But they're not. They specifically chose not to make a netbook. They chose to not enter the netbook market.
Netbooks and tablets have nothing in common besides perhaps price. It is baffling how the two concepts are perceived as being linked. It is a meme that simply makes no sense, none at all.
If you ask yourself what the purpose of a netbook is, I think you'll find that the answer is exactly the same as for the iPad. Ergo, they are linked.
If apple was going after the netbook market, they'd be making a netbook. But they're not. They specifically chose not to make a netbook. They chose to not enter the netbook market.
Netbooks and tablets have nothing in common besides perhaps price. It is baffling how the two concepts are perceived as being linked. It is a meme that simply makes no sense, none at all.
Nope, read the rest of my posts to understand what the "netbook" market consists of and what Apple thinks about it.
Consider this: In 1984, Apple went after the supposed "personal computer" market by making a Mac. You may look back and think it was obvious, but if you were alive then, you would have heard all the PC (and even Apple II) fans who derided the Mac for not having: a larger display, a hard disk drive slots, and a full keyboard (with function and numeric keys). The Mac had no spreadsheet app, and MacWrite had 1/4 of the functionality of a good PC word processor. The Mac was a toy they said.
And in 2007, Apple went after the supposed "smartphone" market by making an iPhone. You may think it was obvious, but you should consider the many Nokia N-series smartphone fans who derided the iPhone for not having 3G, GPS, downloadable apps, removable battery, keyboard, 5MP camera, videocamera - all of which were present on the N95 circa 2007.
Without a doubt, Apple changed both those "markets" (though they haven't dominated them but that's another story).
Just like before, Apple is going after the "netbook" market without making what one normally considers a netbook to be.
If you ask yourself what the purpose of a netbook is, I think you'll find that the answer is exactly the same as for the iPad. Ergo, they are linked.
Not at all. In fact, iPads are only similar to netbooks in regard to price. That is where the similarity ends. The purpose of a netbook is to provide a cheap computer, or in some cases, more specifically, a cheap laptop. It would be one hell of a stretch to call "cheap" the goal of the iPad.
Nope, read the rest of my posts to understand what the "netbook" market consists of and what Apple thinks about it.
Consider this: In 1984, Apple went after the supposed "personal computer" market by making a Mac. You may look back and think it was obvious, but if you were alive then, you would have heard all the PC (and even Apple II) fans who derided the Mac for not having: a larger display, a hard disk drive slots, and a full keyboard (with function and numeric keys). The Mac had no spreadsheet app, and MacWrite had 1/4 of the functionality of a good PC word processor. The Mac was a toy they said.
And in 2007, Apple went after the supposed "smartphone" market by making an iPhone. You may think it was obvious, but you should consider the many Nokia N-series smartphone fans who derided the iPhone for not having 3G, GPS, downloadable apps, removable battery, keyboard, 5MP camera, videocamera - all of which were present on the N95 circa 2007.
Without a doubt, Apple changed both those "markets" (though they haven't dominated them but that's another story).
Just like before, Apple is going after the "netbook" market without making what one normally considers a netbook to be.
That seems like a whole bunch of mumbo-jumbo and double-speak to avoid having to admit a minor error in communicating a point about iPads. You're busy defending tangential points that aren't even related, let alone in dispute.
Put simply, Apple is not getting into the "netbook market". They are not making a netbook. Nor are they making anything remotely resembling a netbook. Apple has been quick to stress this point. They purposefully chose to stay out of the netbook market and instead decided to address a different computing category. Steve has mentioned it on a few occasions. And if I recall correctly, so has Cook during the quarterly conference calls.
An analogy:
Laptops, desktops, and pocket computers (smart phones) aren't the same thing. Similarly, the iPad is also in a separate category. It is a tablet computer.
Granted, there will be competition between netbooks and tablets. But fixating on the two, as if they are somehow linked, is counter productive. They are no more linked than any of the other computer categories. If netbooks are to be compared to anything, they should be compared to laptops.
Not at all. In fact, iPads are only similar to netbooks in regard to price. That is where the similarity ends. The purpose of a netbook is to provide a cheap computer, or in some cases, more specifically, a cheap laptop. It would be one hell of a stretch to call "cheap" the goal of the iPad.
In the Apple universe, the iPad is "cheap."
That seems like a whole bunch of mumbo-jumbo and double-speak to avoid having to admit a minor error in communicating a point about iPads. You're busy defending tangential points that aren't even related, let alone in dispute.
I don't see any minor error. Apple is going after the people who were previously interested in netbooks. I'm not sure what you call that other than the "netbook" market.
And in doing so, they came up with something that doesn't look like netbooks. Just like when they went after personal computer consumers, and came up with something that didn't look like a PC of that era. And when they went after smartphone consumers, and came up with something that didn't look like a smartphone of that era. No mumbo-jumbo but a direct response.
Put simply, Apple is not getting into the "netbook market". They are not making a netbook. Nor are they making anything remotely resembling a netbook. Apple has been quick to stress this point.
Did I say that Apple is making a netbook? Nope, I didn't. I did say that Apple said they don't make junk.
They purposefully chose to stay out of the netbook market and instead decided to address a different computing category. Steve has mentioned it on a few occasions. And if I recall correctly, so has Cook during the quarterly conference calls.
So why did Jobs and Cook talk about having "ideas" (that we know today is the iPad) every time in response to netbook questions? Maybe, because they are linked.
Granted, there will be competition between netbooks and tablets. But fixating on the two, as if they are somehow linked, is counter productive. They are no more linked than any of the other computer categories. If netbooks are to be compared to anything, they should be compared to laptops.
I'm not fixated on the two. But when people say that Apple is not going after the netbook market, I think they are very wrong. They are. They are going after most (not all) of the same people who would be interested in a netbook, and going after them with a product that looks very different but meets the same use cases (that is, surf the web (facebook, twitter, RSS), exchange emails, watch videos, maybe read books, play games).
And I already said there is a small percentage of the netbook market that really wants a full Windows notebook in a smaller and cheaper package because they need to do everything on it that they could do on a notebook (content creation, manipulate files, etc). Those are the only people in the "netbook" market that Apple is not directly going after, because Apple doesn't know how to build such a thing that isn't junk for less than $500. Apple's only answer for those people is the MacBook Air, and it costs way more.
I guess you didn't read my other posts. Sigh.
Apple showed three categories of mobile devices. The iPhone/iPod touch category. The iPad category. The MacBook category. In Apple's view, which category is the netbook category, since there is no fourth category?
You kinda say it is the notebook category. I'd agree if that was the real reason why most people bought netbooks - they wanted the notebook-computing experience in a smaller and cheaper package. My nephew wanted that and it was a FAIL when it mattered most (his fault for violating Windows rule #1: not testing before projecting).
But I'd bet at least half the people who bought netbooks have no use for this notebook-computing experience - they just want to access the web (Facebook, Twitter, RSS, etc), respond to emails, watch some video, maybe read some books. These are my three nieces, who still find it slow to start-up, slow to play video, etc. Though they bought netbooks, do these people really fit into the notebook-computing experience category?
Yes, I read your other posts.
But to answer your question, yes netbooks are laptops. That is precisely what they are in both form and function.
There will be overlap between tablet usage scenarios and laptop usage scenarios. But that is true to a degree for all of the computing form factors. Fixating on how netbooks relate to tablets will lead to rather spurious conclusions.
It is my belief that people are mistakenly conflating netbooks with the iPad simply because they are both new computing form factors that happen to be about the same size and price. "New" in a mass-appeal sense that is. The form factors have both been around for many years already. But size and price don't alone dictate who will use devices and for what purposes. In the case of the iPad, the touch interface, lack of a keyboard, and requirement to be held while in use... are what will define the use scenarios and market for the device.
The iPad is intended as an auxiliary device to supplement a user's existing computing eco-system, a device that will be used for just a subset of a user's computing needs. On the other hand, netbooks are laptops that happen to be inexpensive but offer a full computing experience.
Comparisons between the two can be useful. But fixation on the two as if they are more related than the other form factors, would seem to be counter productive and lead one to derive incorrect conclusions.
In the Apple universe, the iPad is "cheap."
Quite true. But also pertinent is that it can't be used as a stand-alone device (yet). As an auxiliary computer, it won't appeal to people who are looking for a cheap way to fulfill their computing needs.
I'm not fixated on the two. But when people say that Apple is not going after the netbook market, I think they are very wrong. They are. They are going after most (not all) of the same people who would be interested in a netbook, and going after them with a product that looks very different but meets the same use cases (that is, surf the web (facebook, twitter, RSS), exchange emails, watch videos, maybe read books, play games).
Looks like we'll just have to disagree about if Apple is going after the "netbook market". My last comment on that is that the netbook market hasn't proven terribly profitable. It is precisely the type of commodity market that Apple has never gone after. That is why Apple redirects netbook questions to the type of new computing hardware they have chosen to pursue, not because the two are related.
As for usage scenarios. Upon using a tablet computer, the first thing one discovers is that usage scenarios are completely different than with laptops or desktops.
Another lovely car analogy. Mid priced motorcycles and cheap compact cars are roughly the same size and price but have drastically different uses. They're both smaller and less expensive than a typical sedan, truck or SUV. Yeah, I know that's a stretch.
Size and price are not what define the iPad. The form factor and GUI do. They define what will be considered an equivalent product and netbooks don't fall into that category.
Not at all. In fact, iPads are only similar to netbooks in regard to price. That is where the similarity ends. The purpose of a netbook is to provide a cheap computer, or in some cases, more specifically, a cheap laptop. It would be one hell of a stretch to call "cheap" the goal of the iPad.
Being cheap is not the purpose of a Netbook, but rather a byproduct of it's form. Half a computer costs half as much. The Netbook exists because people fell in love with the idea of an ultra-compact, lightweight computer they can carry with them without feeling like they're carrying a computer. It's slow, lacking in hardware, but can perform basic computing tasks like web browsing, email, and instant chat without issue. Sound familiar? Yeah, the iPad is Apple's solution to the netbook market.
Looks like we'll just have to disagree about if Apple is going after the "netbook market". My last comment on that is that the netbook market hasn't proven terribly profitable. It is precisely the type of commodity market that Apple has never gone after. That is why Apple redirects netbook questions to the type of new computing hardware they have chosen to pursue, not because the two are related.
What some folks seem to forget is that there are two netbook markets. One for cheap notebooks and one for auxiliary computing devices. Apple IS going after the netbook maket but like the notebook and desktop markets, only the most profitable segment.
Some netbooks are insanely profitable. Like those $700-$800 ones. With Atoms? Wha?
As for usage scenarios. Upon using a tablet computer, the first thing one discovers is that usage scenarios are completely different than with laptops or desktops.
No, the high level usage scenarios are largely the same since they typically do not describe implementation. A usage scenario is like "Manually visiting a new web page (no hyperlink)" is derived from the overarching Use Case (web surfing). As such the steps are along the lines of
"The user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser"
"The system opens the web browser and presents saved links (aka bookmarks) and the ability to enter a new URL"
"The user selects a new web address by manually entering a URL"
...
The scenario is identical for both tablets and netbooks. The implementation differs...
Size and price are not what define the iPad. The form factor and GUI do. They define what will be considered an equivalent product and netbooks don't fall into that category.
Tablet netbooks certainly could given the UI metaphors could be identical with the exception of having a physical keyboard vs a virtual one. There are several on the market in the same price range.
Are you saying that the Blackberry and iPhone are not in the same category because the blackberry has a keyboard (form factor) and different UI metaphors (key/scroll vs touch) than the iPhone? Because that's about the same level of difference between a high end netbook and an iPad.
Certainly Apple isn't going up against bottom end free phone market with the iPhone. But they sure do target the high end smart phone market.
Certainly Apple isn't going up against the bottom end netbook market with the iPad. But they sure do target the high end secondary computing/executive netbook market.
Anyone that considered the Viao P is going to seriously consider the iPad as an alternative. Same use cases, same demographic, same market and market category.
No, the high level usage scenarios are largely the same since they typically do not describe implementation. A usage scenario is like "Manually visiting a new web page (no hyperlink)" is derived from the overarching Use Case (web surfing). As such the steps are along the lines of
"The user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser"
"The system opens the web browser and presents saved links (aka bookmarks) and the ability to enter a new URL"
"The user selects a new web address by manually entering a URL"
The scenario is identical for both tablets and netbooks. The implementation differs...
...
Are you saying that the Blackberry and iPhone are not in the same category because the blackberry has a keyboard (form factor) and different UI metaphors (key/scroll vs touch) than the iPhone? Because that's about the same level of difference between a high end netbook and an iPad.
Have you ever actually owned or used a tablet for an extended period of time? Not trying to be antagonistic, just wondering. The reason why I ask will hopefully be apparent in the next paragraph.
It has been my experience (and observation of others) that tablet usage is indeed quite different than desktop or laptop usage. The example given above misses the defining characteristics of usage scenarios. The scenario should not begin with "the user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser". Instead, it begins with "user sits down on couch and picks up tablet while waiting for family to join him for a movie.". Or, "user spoons cereal into mouth while using other hand to interact with tablet resting on breakfast table."
The tablet form dictates to a great degree, when and how people use tablet computers. The GUI helps define typical usage scenarios, but the form (screen size, input hardware, etc) also has a massive impact on actual usage.
It is the form, that defines the iPad and appropriate comparison devices. There is a massive difference in usage between tablets and traditional computers. Tablets and netbooks are so different that fixating on comparisons between the two is just baffling. It has been my observation that nearly everyone who has actually used tablets for an appreciable period of time has come to the same conclusion. They are no more a substitue for netbooks (laptops) than are pocket computers. Sure, iPhone users may use email less on their home computer. But iphones rightfully weren't defined as "going after the laptop or desktop market." The same will be true of the iPad. Or at least not in it's first incarnation.
It has been my experience (and observation of others) that tablet usage is indeed quite different than desktop or laptop usage. The example given above misses the defining characteristics of usage scenarios. The scenario should not begin with "the user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser". Instead, it begins with "user sits down on couch and picks up tablet while waiting for family to join him for a movie.". Or, "user spoons cereal into mouth while using other hand to interact with tablet resting on breakfast table." ...
You've expanded the use case a bit to include more info about the scenario, which is fine.
Comparatively then, from my observations, the usage scenario for most people who own netbooks is sit down on a chair/floor/bed/couch at various places (airport, restaurant, convention center, park, living room, bedroom, airplane, etc); place netbook on lap (or table if available); flip open netbook, ...
This portion of the netbook scenario is also included in the tablet usage scenarios, so I would conclude that the tablet usage scenarios are broader than that for the netbook, since the tablet could also be used standing up, and potentially could be more social (not totally sold on this one). [Note, however, the netbook use case can also include more significant content creation, though most netbook owners don't actually use it for that.]
So, tablet and netbook products have overlapping usage scenarios.
Have you ever actually owned or used a tablet for an extended period of time? Not trying to be antagonistic, just wondering. The reason why I ask will hopefully be apparent in the next paragraph.
Yes, I have used tablets quite a bit since 2002. I have a motion tablet (slate), a ruggedized slate, a Panasonic Toughbook tablet (convertible), a handful of UMPC, kneeboards, PDAs that run a variety of linux, winCE, and other mobile/semi-mobile OSs.
I also have a variety of pen based machines (IBM TransNote, Seiko Smartpad, etc) and a couple touch input devices (DiamondTouch, etc) that are prior to 2002.
It has been my experience (and observation of others) that tablet usage is indeed quite different than desktop or laptop usage. The example given above misses the defining characteristics of usage scenarios. The scenario should not begin with "the user initiates web surfing by opening the web browser". Instead, it begins with "user sits down on couch and picks up tablet while waiting for family to join him for a movie.". Or, "user spoons cereal into mouth while using other hand to interact with tablet resting on breakfast table."
You can include user context such as sitting on a couch or using the device one handed (heh) but not the "pick up tablet" part without artificially constraining your implementation possibilities. This is typically not desireable during design phase where use scenarios are employed.
If you have a defining characteristic of usage scenarios then perhaps you should state:
1) The context of your use of the term (RUP, Agile, something else)
2) The actual defining characteristics.
Simply saying that netbooks don't meet the usage scenario because you used the term TABLET in the usage scenario isn't useful in trying to persuade that the two cannot meet the same use cases and compete in the same market space.
Tablet interaction CAN be different from traditional computing. Certainly OneNote isn't very usable with a mouse. On the other hand it is hard to argue that WinXP or Win7 Tablet PC Edition is very well optimized for either pen or multitouch UI interaction given they are WIMP based. In fact, the cynical would point out they aren't much more than normal windows with a couple extra apps and some UI support stuck in there.
The tablet form dictates to a great degree, when and how people use tablet computers.
No, the tablet form dictates some of the limitations for the OS and UI designer. The UI itself constrains how users interact with tablet computers. A Win7 or Linux iPad is going to be significantly different in interaction paradigm than with the Apple OSX iPad.
The GUI helps define typical usage scenarios, but the form (screen size, input hardware, etc) also has a massive impact on actual usage.
Yes. But that doesn't say that two different products that meets the same need aren't in the same category.
It is the form, that defines the iPad and appropriate comparison devices. There is a massive difference in usage between tablets and traditional computers. Tablets and netbooks are so different that fixating on comparisons between the two is just baffling.
Then simply descibe how the Blackberry does not differ in the same way from the iPhone that the netbook differs from the iPad.
Blackberry, Netbook = physical keyboard, no touchscreen, traditional UI
iPhone, iPad = virtual keyboard, touchscreen, touch based UI
Blackberry and iPhone = about the same size, cost and general capabilities
Netbook and iPad = about the same size, cost and general capabilities
It has been my observation that nearly everyone who has actually used tablets for an appreciable period of time has come to the same conclusion.
You mean that they are suboptimal except as convertibles? More or less. Pray tell how many tablets you have used and for how long?
They are no more a substitue for netbooks (laptops) than are pocket computers.
Other than the tablet netbooks and a few UMPCs few are considered netbook substitutes as much as notebook substitutes.
This is ignoring the scads of tablets that appeared at CES this year which only really recently appeared and still remains to be seen how they pan out. I'm thinking not so great for things like the HP Slate based on my slate experiences.
Sure, iPhone users may use email less on their home computer. But iphones rightfully weren't defined as "going after the laptop or desktop market." The same will be true of the iPad. Or at least not in it's first incarnation.
Which is why I was very clear in pointing out that the netbook market has two segments and that Apple was targetting the higher end segment that buys netbooks as secondary computing devices. A point you clearly avoided...
A lot of the discussions about "what the iPad is for" assume a difference in degree: easier, lighter, possibly faster-- then go on to argue that these differences are insufficient to differentiate the iPad from cheaper, more ubiquitous netbooks, which have various other advantages (real keyboard, full desktop OS, Flash, etc.).
I would argue that the iPad represents a difference in kind-- that a well integrated touch device of appropriate ergonomics can't be causally dismissed just because it "does computing stuff just like a netbook."
It was easy to argue that the iPhone didn't do anything more than existing smartphones, it just did it with fancy animations and "slickness" (as if that were a cheat, somehow). As we know, the particulars of the iPhone's UI, ecosystem and hardware in fact ushered in a new era of ubiquitous mobile computing, and these changes are still accelerating. I believe that happened because the iPhone presented consumers with a new kind of experience, and that such experiences are not well described by "open browser type URL" checklists.
IMO the iPad will present another, new, user experience, and any talk of "does the same stuff as this machine I have here" just misses the point. Human beings aren't about use scenarios, they're about pleasure and reward and emotional responses to stuff they do. If the experience feels different, it is different. If it feels entirely different, like "something I've never done before", then for the purposes of a discussion about people and the devices they use, then it is in fact an entirely different thing --no matter how many dry points of congruity with previous devices one might point out.
I would argue that the iPad represents a difference in kind-- that a well integrated touch device of appropriate ergonomics can't be causally dismissed just because it "does computing stuff just like a netbook."
I think that it is more accurate to say that the iPad is far more likely to meet some of the uses that folks intended to be filled by a netbook than a netbook because of the ease of use of the platform.
Worded differently, it doesn't mean that the iPad IS A netbook but it does mean it IS targetted squarely at those users that have purchased netbooks but have been, thus far, poorly served. Meaning it isn't a new market but yet another one that Apple has seen a way to profitably address in a new fashion.
I think that it is more accurate to say that the iPad is far more likely to meet some of the uses that folks intended to be filled by a netbook than a netbook because of the ease of use of the platform.
Worded differently, it doesn't mean that the iPad IS A netbook but it does mean it IS targetted squarely at those users that have purchased netbooks but have been, thus far, poorly served. Meaning it isn't a new market but yet another one that Apple has seen a way to profitably address in a new fashion.
Yeah, certainly there's a semantic thicket here that would be easy to debate endlessly, but it seems to me that, again to use the example of the iPhone, that there are now millions of people routinely doing things in ways that they never did before (indeed, in ways that they never imagined were even possible to do) because the iPhone made those things accessible.
For those people, the iPhone and follow on devices from other manufacturers represent an entirely new kind of device, even though strictly speaking you have done most of what you use the iPhone for before it existed. The newness resides in how, exactly, the device integrates with one's life, not if the stock categories of what it does.
So I would argue that the iPad potentially represents a "new" kind of thing, not because it can surf the web a little more conveniently and such, but because that particular combination of hardware and software and form factor and ecosystem will afford people opportunities to relate to it differently and discover new ways of doing things.
Obviously we may disagree on the significance of "new ways" which is admittedly a bit amorphous, but IMO it always gets back to one's emotional response to how that thing fits in with how one goes about living.