Really? Kinda lame. I get the impression you're increasingly driven to find some kind of anti-Apple angle, even when it doesn't make much sense.
I mean, seriously: comparing screen size to seating capacity? Good lord. But let's play: what about the PlayBook gives it "Ferrari" status against the iPad's "minivan"? Since that's how this works, apparently.
And for bonus points, maybe you can square the now minivan-esque status of the iPad with the constant drumbeat of how only hipsters and posers buy them so they can look cool.
A ferrari doesn't have to be a good thing either --- it has terrible gas mileage, seats are crammed, some don't even come with a cupholder. It goes nicely with our discussions like battery life or comfort with a larger screen.
A ferrari doesn't have to be a good thing either --- it has terrible gas mileage, seats are crammed, some don't even come with a cupholder. It goes nicely with our discussions like battery life or comfort with a larger screen.
Well, except the screen, when it comes to a touch tablet, is pretty much the whole thing. As such it makes an even worse car analogy than the usual not so good car analogies.
There's nothing on a car that is remotely analogous to the complete domination of the screen on a tablet with regards how it functions and what the user experience is like. You don't trade handling for comfort or speed for gas mileage or luxury for size or any of that. It's just a slightly more cramped environment in exchange for slightly better portability, the end.
That depends on how they intend to deliver content. Imagine when/if Apple introduce a cloud based streaming model for movies, 32 Gb is going to be more than enough.
Also there are as many different usage patterns as there are people.
I use my iPad exclusively for writing and creative work. Since I already carry 20 gigs of music on my iPhone, it would be stupid of me to duplicate it on the iPad when I have both with me at all times anyway. I put a couple of movies on it, just to show people how they look, but I don't really have a need for that. Any more than the base model 16GB model is total overkill for me even though I'm a "power user" of sorts.
Well, except the screen, when it comes to a touch tablet, is pretty much the whole thing. As such it makes an even worse car analogy than the usual not so good car analogies.
There's nothing on a car that is remotely analogous to the complete domination of the screen on a tablet with regards how it functions and what the user experience is like. You don't trade handling for comfort or speed for gas mileage or luxury for size or any of that. It's just a slightly more cramped environment in exchange for slightly better portability, the end.
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
Fine, but that's an entirely different conversation. I'll just say that I totally disagree that web site rendering is somehow the main differentiator of experience on devices of differing size. Since, one, the rendering differences are likely to be slight, and two, the iPad does a great many things beyond rendering web pages.
Fine, but that's an entirely different conversation. I'll just say that I totally disagree that web site rendering is somehow the main differentiator of experience on devices of differing size. Since, one, the rendering differences are likely to be slight, and two, the iPad does a great many things beyond rendering web pages.
Good, we agree to disagree --- nothing wrong with that.
The sports car analogy is a lot appropriate than most naysayers seemed to think. The RIM Playbook will come with a faster CPU with a worse battery life. A Ferrari comes with a V12 with worse gas mileage. Who says that a Ferrari has to be a good thing? If you want market share and pure profit --- sell a Honda Accord.
Hm, any details on this "free tethering with Blackberries" mentioned in the article? It would surprise me quite a bit, if this turns out to be true. With some carriers / in some countries BBs were getting cheaper plans than real smart phones, because they are mainly used for email. Tethering a Playbook to the phone will cause data transfer to go through the roof. I do not see carriers doing that for free at all. Just look at the horrendous rates Verizon tagged to the MS KIN-non-m 1 and 2... and this was not even a tablet, just a feature phone with some video uploading and a social platform refresh every 15 minutes. Playbook users might even end up paying a lot more than iPad users, if they need an add-on contract, and they might not even get the opportunity to opt out of additional data charges on a monthly basis.
It will be interesting to see the effect on battery life of this approach. I expect both, Blackberry and Playbook, will be depleted by the time an iPad approaches 80%...
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
It renders well. There's Rage HD, and the demo of Epic Citadel to look to realize that.
And Apple develops Webkit. Everyone else uses what Apple works out. As for flash, well, now that there's close to 60% of all video on the web being sent using HTML 5, it's not that important anymore. Considering that 6 months ago, that number was just 16%, that's a pretty big jump. So, what else does Flash do?
There are some websites that use Flash. Most also work quite well without it. Some, and it's a smaller number as time goes on, won't work without Flash. Who cares other than the developers who are getting paid for the work? Very few.
Then there are the Flash games on the web. There are tens of thousands of games for iOS that are free, or cost 99 cents. So no biggie there, ESP. considering that you can't play web based Flash games when in the subway, on a plane, or in most cruise ships.
Ahh, then there are the Ads. You LOVE Flash Ads, right? We all do.
That's like saying that my minivan should cost more than a Ferrari because my minivan sits 7 people and the Ferrari sits 2.
Strange comparison. That makes no sense at all.
Given that the screen is by far the most expensive component in the iPad (even by iSupply standards, a company that makes headlines for ridiculously under-estimating the costs of any Apple Bill of Materials).
By their measure, the screen is still 35% more than processors, SDRAM and NAND Flash combined. Throw in the 2 cameras for $10.75, you still come up short.
So I'd say it is still a valid suggestion that a smaller 7" tablet should cost less than an iPad...
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
Given the enormous demand for the iPad, I suggest that virtually nobody besides Flash developers and Adobe gives a rip about Flash not be able to play on the device.
Content providers will not want to miss the significant purchasing power of millions of iPad customers and either create apps or deliver their stuff via HTML/H.264. This is already happening on the video-side of things.
Also, I suggest that the form factor of a 7" device is not to its advantage. It's more or less the shape of a box of spaghetti. The iPad has a more usable format, independent of size...
Comments
Really? Kinda lame. I get the impression you're increasingly driven to find some kind of anti-Apple angle, even when it doesn't make much sense.
I mean, seriously: comparing screen size to seating capacity? Good lord. But let's play: what about the PlayBook gives it "Ferrari" status against the iPad's "minivan"? Since that's how this works, apparently.
And for bonus points, maybe you can square the now minivan-esque status of the iPad with the constant drumbeat of how only hipsters and posers buy them so they can look cool.
A ferrari doesn't have to be a good thing either --- it has terrible gas mileage, seats are crammed, some don't even come with a cupholder. It goes nicely with our discussions like battery life or comfort with a larger screen.
7 inch display with 16 GB will be 499? Good luck selling.
should be 45% cheaper, and why get the thing in the first place what else in the rim universe are they offering,
the apple universe is more diverse,
it will fold like the folio did
can we now predict a return rate?
how about 80%
Best and Happy Thanksgiving to all in the US!
A ferrari doesn't have to be a good thing either --- it has terrible gas mileage, seats are crammed, some don't even come with a cupholder. It goes nicely with our discussions like battery life or comfort with a larger screen.
Well, except the screen, when it comes to a touch tablet, is pretty much the whole thing. As such it makes an even worse car analogy than the usual not so good car analogies.
There's nothing on a car that is remotely analogous to the complete domination of the screen on a tablet with regards how it functions and what the user experience is like. You don't trade handling for comfort or speed for gas mileage or luxury for size or any of that. It's just a slightly more cramped environment in exchange for slightly better portability, the end.
That depends on how they intend to deliver content. Imagine when/if Apple introduce a cloud based streaming model for movies, 32 Gb is going to be more than enough.
Also there are as many different usage patterns as there are people.
I use my iPad exclusively for writing and creative work. Since I already carry 20 gigs of music on my iPhone, it would be stupid of me to duplicate it on the iPad when I have both with me at all times anyway. I put a couple of movies on it, just to show people how they look, but I don't really have a need for that. Any more than the base model 16GB model is total overkill for me even though I'm a "power user" of sorts.
Well, except the screen, when it comes to a touch tablet, is pretty much the whole thing. As such it makes an even worse car analogy than the usual not so good car analogies.
There's nothing on a car that is remotely analogous to the complete domination of the screen on a tablet with regards how it functions and what the user experience is like. You don't trade handling for comfort or speed for gas mileage or luxury for size or any of that. It's just a slightly more cramped environment in exchange for slightly better portability, the end.
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
Would love some details on these "implications".
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
Fine, but that's an entirely different conversation. I'll just say that I totally disagree that web site rendering is somehow the main differentiator of experience on devices of differing size. Since, one, the rendering differences are likely to be slight, and two, the iPad does a great many things beyond rendering web pages.
"MAY" undercut the iPad.....
and I MAY buy 10 billion iPads....
Well at $399 it will undercut the iPad. In price.
Fine, but that's an entirely different conversation. I'll just say that I totally disagree that web site rendering is somehow the main differentiator of experience on devices of differing size. Since, one, the rendering differences are likely to be slight, and two, the iPad does a great many things beyond rendering web pages.
Good, we agree to disagree --- nothing wrong with that.
The sports car analogy is a lot appropriate than most naysayers seemed to think. The RIM Playbook will come with a faster CPU with a worse battery life. A Ferrari comes with a V12 with worse gas mileage. Who says that a Ferrari has to be a good thing? If you want market share and pure profit --- sell a Honda Accord.
I have to agree with jobs on this and that 7" is too small. For what they do, 10" is perfect. Still, I'm a lappy fan.
It will be interesting to see the effect on battery life of this approach. I expect both, Blackberry and Playbook, will be depleted by the time an iPad approaches 80%...
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
It renders well. There's Rage HD, and the demo of Epic Citadel to look to realize that.
And Apple develops Webkit. Everyone else uses what Apple works out. As for flash, well, now that there's close to 60% of all video on the web being sent using HTML 5, it's not that important anymore. Considering that 6 months ago, that number was just 16%, that's a pretty big jump. So, what else does Flash do?
There are some websites that use Flash. Most also work quite well without it. Some, and it's a smaller number as time goes on, won't work without Flash. Who cares other than the developers who are getting paid for the work? Very few.
Then there are the Flash games on the web. There are tens of thousands of games for iOS that are free, or cost 99 cents. So no biggie there, ESP. considering that you can't play web based Flash games when in the subway, on a plane, or in most cruise ships.
Ahh, then there are the Ads. You LOVE Flash Ads, right? We all do.
That's like saying that my minivan should cost more than a Ferrari because my minivan sits 7 people and the Ferrari sits 2.
Strange comparison. That makes no sense at all.
Given that the screen is by far the most expensive component in the iPad (even by iSupply standards, a company that makes headlines for ridiculously under-estimating the costs of any Apple Bill of Materials).
By their measure, the screen is still 35% more than processors, SDRAM and NAND Flash combined. Throw in the 2 cameras for $10.75, you still come up short.
So I'd say it is still a valid suggestion that a smaller 7" tablet should cost less than an iPad...
First impression: RIM is going to offer a special promotion -- BNGO (pronounced BINGO), stands for Buy None Get One
It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.
Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
Given the enormous demand for the iPad, I suggest that virtually nobody besides Flash developers and Adobe gives a rip about Flash not be able to play on the device.
Content providers will not want to miss the significant purchasing power of millions of iPad customers and either create apps or deliver their stuff via HTML/H.264. This is already happening on the video-side of things.
Also, I suggest that the form factor of a 7" device is not to its advantage. It's more or less the shape of a box of spaghetti. The iPad has a more usable format, independent of size...