Look at the speed where the UI judders while panning Google maps with a 3D rendering nobody needs because it doesn't show anything useful. Look at the design with no home button - let's see how they get out of frozen fullscreen apps. Look at the innovative Mail app that Rubin admits is just like the iPad version and notice when it launches the rendering is all messed up until he does a screen rotate to redraw it (it is just a prototype though). Check out those neat viewing angles and colour reproduction.
I've seen disingenuous adverts before but this one really takes the cake. They're also still comparing their tablets to iPad 1, which is 8 months old and from the demo, they haven't even caught up to that yet.
Lower quality software, lower quality hardware and if they follow other manufacturers, it will be comparable in price, which is pointless.
Look at the speed where the UI judders while panning Google maps with a 3D rendering nobody needs because it doesn't show anything useful. Look at the design with no home button - let's see how they get out of frozen fullscreen apps. Look at the innovative Mail app that Rubin admits is just like the iPad version and notice when it launches the rendering is all messed up until he does a screen rotate to redraw it (it is just a prototype though). Check out those neat viewing angles and colour reproduction.
I've seen disingenuous adverts before but this one really takes the cake. They're also still comparing their tablets to iPad 1, which is 8 months old and from the demo, they haven't even caught up to that yet.
Lower quality software, lower quality hardware and if they follow other manufacturers, it will be comparable in price, which is pointless.
Funny, but I thought the demo was pretty slick given the hardware and software are unfinished. Plus it has a 16x9 screen by the looks of it, which will make it a far better video device than the iPad.
And I can't believe you're slagging off vector based Google Maps. Do you seriously prefer 2D bitmaps? Come on, you're either trolling or just have zero technical knowledge.
Good points but hype/anticipation-building ads are a staple of the industry. Don't forget the Apple 1984 ad, widely held up as one of the best there's ever been (rightly or wrongly). It was an ad for an unreleased product.
While you are technically correct..... The Superbowl airs when it airs. You cannot move it to suit your advertising. The Mac was released just weeks later. Quite successfully as I remember.. LOL
Should be interesting to see the first legitimate iPad competitors. Here's hoping they can force down Apple's iPad price a bit more.
I would assume since the Ten Commandments are imaginary they can pretend they were in whatever language they want!
Whether or not they existed on stone tablets is open for debate, but the ten commandments have existed for thousands of years and their original language was Hebrew
Most of the Android tablets are only 7", so they're closer to the Android phones than the iPad is to the iPhone. So making this complaint about the iPad is just plain silly.
you are SO right! if it wasn't for apple's competition?forcing apple to innovate, they (apple) wouldn't be where they are now.
Well... no. After Jobs got fired, Apple was under PLENTY of competitive pressure to innovate. They failed miserably, and nearly went down the tubes. It was only after Jobs came back (and, as he says, "cleared out the deadwood") that things changed.
Competition didn't and doesn't 'force' Apple to innovate. If that was the answer, Sony would be innovating all over the place. So would a lot of other companies. Most of them are like Microsoft - they claim 'innovation' but in reality, they're just following the pack.
99% of all companies respond to competitive pressure by subterfuge, hiring away key employees, false advertising, outright theft, and other shady business practices. They barely 'innovate' because it's too fraught with peril, and they don't know how. Innovation dies in most corporate cultures. Maybe a few times per century, you'll get a Henry Ford, a Thomas Edison, or a Ghandi. These are rare, gifted, and driven men, and they change the world.
Steve Jobs, and ONLY Steve Jobs, is what drives innovation at Apple.
It's a great start to a commercial. Just work with it, and don't bash the competition. You have a iPad, now tell folks why they should buy yours instead of anyone of the others.
All these iPad want to bee's (sorry i couldn't resist), remind of of something Branson once said when ask about going up against Coke and Pepsi in the drink wars. He said something like this:
"Look, Coke & Pepsi sell some 50 BILLION dollars in drinks. I know I'm not going to hurt them, hell look at it this way. If I can get 1-3% of the market share, that's what 1 1.5 BILLION dollars in sales?" I paid 145 Million for the company, it seems like a win-win to me." "I have grocery stores all over the world, so I have distribution already ? blah, blah."
So if these iPad want to bee's, are ok with 1- 8% market share.
I just love the way all the rabid fanboys on here are slagging off Motorola's tablet without knowing anything about it whatsoever.
Glad you're going into this with an open mind. Keep it up fanboys!
I just love the way Motorola's lousy track record gets thrown out the window so some Apple-bashing clownboy can pretend its NONEXISTENT product trumps the fastest-selling new computer product in history. And look! He's using a disparaging term that has NEVER been used before! How original and clever of him! Well, he must be correct, then.
OMG! That was hilarious! Rubin says "it doesn't have any buttons so you can't get lost." And the woman say "well, the iPad only has one button." Then he says "it still can be confusing."
No wonder nobody can come up with an iPad killer; they get confused by the presence of one button.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
There's a reason they covered it up. Behold the revolution everyone:
Look at the speed where the UI judders while panning Google maps with a 3D rendering nobody needs because it doesn't show anything useful. Look at the design with no home button - let's see how they get out of frozen fullscreen apps. Look at the innovative Mail app that Rubin admits is just like the iPad version and notice when it launches the rendering is all messed up until he does a screen rotate to redraw it (it is just a prototype though). Check out those neat viewing angles and colour reproduction.
I've seen disingenuous adverts before but this one really takes the cake. They're also still comparing their tablets to iPad 1, which is 8 months old and from the demo, they haven't even caught up to that yet.
Lower quality software, lower quality hardware and if they follow other manufacturers, it will be comparable in price, which is pointless.
HONEYCOMB HONEYCOMB ME WANT HONEYCOMB! </cheesy 1980s kids tv ad referance>
I am excited to see such competition, this is what drives innovation and forces leaders like apple to innovate because they want to stay ahead
People keep repeating this and it's rarely true.
How did the competitions between dozens (hundreds?) of phone manufacturers drive innovation? What upset the entire apple cart was ... Apple and the iPhone.
How did the competition drive innovation in the tablet market? It didn't - there really wasn't a tablet market until Apple created it almost overnight.
How did the competition drive innovation in the MP3 player market? It didn't - there really wasn't much innovation until Apple brought together a different approach with the iPod.
How did the competition drive innovation in the vacuum cleaner market over decades and decades? It didn't - there were just variants on a theme until Dyson created a bagless cleaner.
How did the competition drive innovation in the small car market? It didn't, until Alec Issigonis created the Mini, which although slow to pick up sales eventually redefined what a really small car could be.
How did the competition drive innovation in the mainstream car market? It didn't - pretty much everything was more and more of just the same until Citroën introduced one innovation after another with monocoque construction, removal of running boards, front-wheel drive, self-levelling suspension, powered brakes and more. The company was not a huge player in the market and eventually was taken over but they had real vision and some of that lives on in pretty much every car in the world.
I won't go on any further but it's clear that competition in and of itself rarely produces any breakthroughs, but what does, is (frequently) one person's vision which is often counter to the perceived wisdom which is just what everyone else is offering in spades. Someone's sig on here from Henry Ford perfectly sums it up "If I'd asked what people wanted they would have said faster horses" Most great innovators - Jobs, Citroën, Issigonis, Dyson and others - see past the present to new possibilities because that's the kind of people they are. What's unusual about Jobs is that he's not an engineer - though of course Jonny Ive has a good deal of input and he IS an engineer.
How did the competitions between dozens (hundreds?) of phone manufacturers drive innovation? What upset the entire apple cart was ... Apple and the iPhone.
How did the competition drive innovation in the tablet market? It didn't - there really wasn't a tablet market until Apple created it almost overnight.
How did the competition drive innovation in the MP3 player market? It didn't - there really wasn't much innovation until Apple brought together a different approach with the iPod.
How did the competition drive innovation in the vacuum cleaner market over decades and decades? It didn't - there were just variants on a theme until Dyson created a bagless cleaner.
How did the competition drive innovation in the small car market? It didn't, until Alec Issigonis created the Mini, which although slow to pick up sales eventually redefined what a really small car could be.
How did the competition drive innovation in the mainstream car market? It didn't - pretty much everything was more and more of just the same until Citroën introduced one innovation after another with monocoque construction, removal of running boards, front-wheel drive, self-levelling suspension, powered brakes and more. The company was not a huge player in the market and eventually was taken over but they had real vision and some of that lives on in pretty much every car in the world.
I won't go on any further but it's clear that competition in and of itself rarely produces any breakthroughs, but what does, is (frequently) one person's vision which is often counter to the perceived wisdom which is just what everyone else is offering in spades.
While they won't likely "mess up", they have in recent years made the occassional mis-steps. Because Apple refuses to use focus groups, they sometimes misjudge how consumers will react to their design choices. The buttonless shuffle is a prime example. The difference in today's Apple is they are more likely to correct their mistakes more quickly than in the past, either openly, as Steve Jobs did about the shuffle, or through design changes without admiting they made a mistake, like putting FW back on the MBPs after they took it off because according to Steve nobody needed it anymore.
Apple has a lot of examples of technology that they never really followed through on or done much to advance. FrontRow is a good example of something that got a lot of attention from Steve when it was unveiled, but has seen almost no advances since then. iWeb is another example that is sorely in need of an upgrade. It's as if Apple created it to check a box and then moved on never to revisit it again. iCal is one of the worst calendar UIs I've used, and yet it's seen few updates in the last couple of OS revisions. Sometimes Apple is like a little kid, if it's not shiny with flash or sizzle, they lose interest.
If you want hardware examples, the Mac mini is a good one, at one point waiting around two years before Apple got around to updating it (again, no flash or sizzle, so they didn't give it the needed attention). The original iPod camera connector was horrible, but they didn't even try to improve it until the iPad came along. They had an FM radio/remote that never got any attention from Apple even as people begged for an FM tuner in iPods (not realizing you could add it via the remote accessory).
But to your point, I seriously doubt the iPad will suffer from lack of attention, at least not for a couple more generations, anyway. I'm more concerned with an iPad mis-step, going too far with some design concept, than I am about stagnantation.
Like Wizard69, you didn't answer my question. And your points are ludicrous to say the least.
Seems your discontent is personal. Not universal. Much like the many here that just complain.
Apple continues to lead, and lead significantly in sales, service and support. You don't get such high regard from being stagnant or having a history of doing the wrong things at the wrong time.
Your concern, "… with an iPad mis-step, going too far with some design concept,…" appears to be the same strategic basis for all the Apple copiers'. And historically, they can't seem to wait for Apple to make the next 'mis-step' as you so surmise.
Funny, but I thought the demo was pretty slick given the hardware and software are unfinished. Plus it has a 16x9 screen by the looks of it, which will make it a far better video device than the iPad.
The viewing angles are terrible as are the colours. They are also making 7" and 10" variants, the former clearly being worse for video and the latter only slightly better in terms of size (IPS > 16:9). It's going to be much worse in portrait mode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
And I can't believe you're slagging off vector based Google Maps. Do you seriously prefer 2D bitmaps? Come on, you're either trolling or just have zero technical knowledge.
Of course vectors are better here but not this implementation. Look how slow it was in the demo. If they can't rasterize the vectors quickly enough for smooth panning and zooming, I'd take bitmaps any day. It's the experience that matters at the end of the day above all else.
the plus is that you can caches the vector data on the device more easily as it takes up much less space but it will probably come to other devices too. Google isn't going to stop other devices using vector-based maps and Apple will implement it better because they can ensure hardware-acceleration, which just won't be possible on low-spec Android devices.
How did the competitions between dozens (hundreds?) of phone manufacturers drive innovation? What upset the entire apple cart was ... Apple and the iPhone.
If you only look at iPhone v1 perhaps.
You need to look at the difference between iPhone v1 and iPhone v4. Without any competition they wouldn't have pushed the platform as far and as quickly.
Comments
The final object in the "museum" is concealed, sitting atop a stand with a Motorola logo.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/goog...blet-50001905/
Look at the speed where the UI judders while panning Google maps with a 3D rendering nobody needs because it doesn't show anything useful. Look at the design with no home button - let's see how they get out of frozen fullscreen apps. Look at the innovative Mail app that Rubin admits is just like the iPad version and notice when it launches the rendering is all messed up until he does a screen rotate to redraw it (it is just a prototype though). Check out those neat viewing angles and colour reproduction.
I've seen disingenuous adverts before but this one really takes the cake. They're also still comparing their tablets to iPad 1, which is 8 months old and from the demo, they haven't even caught up to that yet.
Lower quality software, lower quality hardware and if they follow other manufacturers, it will be comparable in price, which is pointless.
Glad you're going into this with an open mind. Keep it up fanboys!
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/goog...blet-50001905/
Look at the speed where the UI judders while panning Google maps with a 3D rendering nobody needs because it doesn't show anything useful. Look at the design with no home button - let's see how they get out of frozen fullscreen apps. Look at the innovative Mail app that Rubin admits is just like the iPad version and notice when it launches the rendering is all messed up until he does a screen rotate to redraw it (it is just a prototype though). Check out those neat viewing angles and colour reproduction.
I've seen disingenuous adverts before but this one really takes the cake. They're also still comparing their tablets to iPad 1, which is 8 months old and from the demo, they haven't even caught up to that yet.
Lower quality software, lower quality hardware and if they follow other manufacturers, it will be comparable in price, which is pointless.
Funny, but I thought the demo was pretty slick given the hardware and software are unfinished. Plus it has a 16x9 screen by the looks of it, which will make it a far better video device than the iPad.
And I can't believe you're slagging off vector based Google Maps. Do you seriously prefer 2D bitmaps? Come on, you're either trolling or just have zero technical knowledge.
Well... At least they're not making ridiculous claims of it somehow being 'magical' -
Ah, but isn't it magical that using vague terms like 'magical' keeps the sharks and regulators at bay? And the consumers think it's nifty.
Good points but hype/anticipation-building ads are a staple of the industry. Don't forget the Apple 1984 ad, widely held up as one of the best there's ever been (rightly or wrongly). It was an ad for an unreleased product.
While you are technically correct..... The Superbowl airs when it airs. You cannot move it to suit your advertising. The Mac was released just weeks later. Quite successfully as I remember.. LOL
Just a thought,
en
Do you expect a different form factor? The ipad doesn't look much different from previous tablets. Please get off it.
Should be interesting to see the first legitimate iPad competitors. Here's hoping they can force down Apple's iPad price a bit more.
I would assume since the Ten Commandments are imaginary they can pretend they were in whatever language they want!
Whether or not they existed on stone tablets is open for debate, but the ten commandments have existed for thousands of years and their original language was Hebrew
...but it's just a giant DROID
Actually, that's the funny thing about this.
Most of the Android tablets are only 7", so they're closer to the Android phones than the iPad is to the iPhone. So making this complaint about the iPad is just plain silly.
you are SO right! if it wasn't for apple's competition?forcing apple to innovate, they (apple) wouldn't be where they are now.
Well... no. After Jobs got fired, Apple was under PLENTY of competitive pressure to innovate. They failed miserably, and nearly went down the tubes. It was only after Jobs came back (and, as he says, "cleared out the deadwood") that things changed.
Competition didn't and doesn't 'force' Apple to innovate. If that was the answer, Sony would be innovating all over the place. So would a lot of other companies. Most of them are like Microsoft - they claim 'innovation' but in reality, they're just following the pack.
99% of all companies respond to competitive pressure by subterfuge, hiring away key employees, false advertising, outright theft, and other shady business practices. They barely 'innovate' because it's too fraught with peril, and they don't know how. Innovation dies in most corporate cultures. Maybe a few times per century, you'll get a Henry Ford, a Thomas Edison, or a Ghandi. These are rare, gifted, and driven men, and they change the world.
Steve Jobs, and ONLY Steve Jobs, is what drives innovation at Apple.
All these iPad want to bee's (sorry i couldn't resist), remind of of something Branson once said when ask about going up against Coke and Pepsi in the drink wars. He said something like this:
"Look, Coke & Pepsi sell some 50 BILLION dollars in drinks. I know I'm not going to hurt them, hell look at it this way. If I can get 1-3% of the market share, that's what 1 1.5 BILLION dollars in sales?" I paid 145 Million for the company, it seems like a win-win to me." "I have grocery stores all over the world, so I have distribution already ? blah, blah."
So if these iPad want to bee's, are ok with 1- 8% market share.
Skip
I just love the way all the rabid fanboys on here are slagging off Motorola's tablet without knowing anything about it whatsoever.
Glad you're going into this with an open mind. Keep it up fanboys!
I just love the way Motorola's lousy track record gets thrown out the window so some Apple-bashing clownboy can pretend its NONEXISTENT product trumps the fastest-selling new computer product in history. And look! He's using a disparaging term that has NEVER been used before! How original and clever of him! Well, he must be correct, then.
Keep it up clownboy!
No wonder nobody can come up with an iPad killer; they get confused by the presence of one button.
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/goog...blet-50001905/
Look at the speed where the UI judders while panning Google maps with a 3D rendering nobody needs because it doesn't show anything useful. Look at the design with no home button - let's see how they get out of frozen fullscreen apps. Look at the innovative Mail app that Rubin admits is just like the iPad version and notice when it launches the rendering is all messed up until he does a screen rotate to redraw it (it is just a prototype though). Check out those neat viewing angles and colour reproduction.
I've seen disingenuous adverts before but this one really takes the cake. They're also still comparing their tablets to iPad 1, which is 8 months old and from the demo, they haven't even caught up to that yet.
Lower quality software, lower quality hardware and if they follow other manufacturers, it will be comparable in price, which is pointless.
HONEYCOMB HONEYCOMB ME WANT HONEYCOMB! </cheesy 1980s kids tv ad referance>
I am excited to see such competition, this is what drives innovation and forces leaders like apple to innovate because they want to stay ahead
People keep repeating this and it's rarely true.
How did the competitions between dozens (hundreds?) of phone manufacturers drive innovation? What upset the entire apple cart was ... Apple and the iPhone.
How did the competition drive innovation in the tablet market? It didn't - there really wasn't a tablet market until Apple created it almost overnight.
How did the competition drive innovation in the MP3 player market? It didn't - there really wasn't much innovation until Apple brought together a different approach with the iPod.
How did the competition drive innovation in the vacuum cleaner market over decades and decades? It didn't - there were just variants on a theme until Dyson created a bagless cleaner.
How did the competition drive innovation in the small car market? It didn't, until Alec Issigonis created the Mini, which although slow to pick up sales eventually redefined what a really small car could be.
How did the competition drive innovation in the mainstream car market? It didn't - pretty much everything was more and more of just the same until Citroën introduced one innovation after another with monocoque construction, removal of running boards, front-wheel drive, self-levelling suspension, powered brakes and more. The company was not a huge player in the market and eventually was taken over but they had real vision and some of that lives on in pretty much every car in the world.
I won't go on any further but it's clear that competition in and of itself rarely produces any breakthroughs, but what does, is (frequently) one person's vision which is often counter to the perceived wisdom which is just what everyone else is offering in spades. Someone's sig on here from Henry Ford perfectly sums it up "If I'd asked what people wanted they would have said faster horses" Most great innovators - Jobs, Citroën, Issigonis, Dyson and others - see past the present to new possibilities because that's the kind of people they are. What's unusual about Jobs is that he's not an engineer - though of course Jonny Ive has a good deal of input and he IS an engineer.
DaHarder is probably gonna buy 3 of this for each of his family members.
We haven't forgotten ...
How did the competitions between dozens (hundreds?) of phone manufacturers drive innovation? What upset the entire apple cart was ... Apple and the iPhone.
How did the competition drive innovation in the tablet market? It didn't - there really wasn't a tablet market until Apple created it almost overnight.
How did the competition drive innovation in the MP3 player market? It didn't - there really wasn't much innovation until Apple brought together a different approach with the iPod.
How did the competition drive innovation in the vacuum cleaner market over decades and decades? It didn't - there were just variants on a theme until Dyson created a bagless cleaner.
How did the competition drive innovation in the small car market? It didn't, until Alec Issigonis created the Mini, which although slow to pick up sales eventually redefined what a really small car could be.
How did the competition drive innovation in the mainstream car market? It didn't - pretty much everything was more and more of just the same until Citroën introduced one innovation after another with monocoque construction, removal of running boards, front-wheel drive, self-levelling suspension, powered brakes and more. The company was not a huge player in the market and eventually was taken over but they had real vision and some of that lives on in pretty much every car in the world.
I won't go on any further but it's clear that competition in and of itself rarely produces any breakthroughs, but what does, is (frequently) one person's vision which is often counter to the perceived wisdom which is just what everyone else is offering in spades.
THIS. Yes. Thank you.
While they won't likely "mess up", they have in recent years made the occassional mis-steps. Because Apple refuses to use focus groups, they sometimes misjudge how consumers will react to their design choices. The buttonless shuffle is a prime example. The difference in today's Apple is they are more likely to correct their mistakes more quickly than in the past, either openly, as Steve Jobs did about the shuffle, or through design changes without admiting they made a mistake, like putting FW back on the MBPs after they took it off because according to Steve nobody needed it anymore.
Apple has a lot of examples of technology that they never really followed through on or done much to advance. FrontRow is a good example of something that got a lot of attention from Steve when it was unveiled, but has seen almost no advances since then. iWeb is another example that is sorely in need of an upgrade. It's as if Apple created it to check a box and then moved on never to revisit it again. iCal is one of the worst calendar UIs I've used, and yet it's seen few updates in the last couple of OS revisions. Sometimes Apple is like a little kid, if it's not shiny with flash or sizzle, they lose interest.
If you want hardware examples, the Mac mini is a good one, at one point waiting around two years before Apple got around to updating it (again, no flash or sizzle, so they didn't give it the needed attention). The original iPod camera connector was horrible, but they didn't even try to improve it until the iPad came along. They had an FM radio/remote that never got any attention from Apple even as people begged for an FM tuner in iPods (not realizing you could add it via the remote accessory).
But to your point, I seriously doubt the iPad will suffer from lack of attention, at least not for a couple more generations, anyway. I'm more concerned with an iPad mis-step, going too far with some design concept, than I am about stagnantation.
Like Wizard69, you didn't answer my question. And your points are ludicrous to say the least.
Seems your discontent is personal. Not universal. Much like the many here that just complain.
Apple continues to lead, and lead significantly in sales, service and support. You don't get such high regard from being stagnant or having a history of doing the wrong things at the wrong time.
Your concern, "… with an iPad mis-step, going too far with some design concept,…" appears to be the same strategic basis for all the Apple copiers'. And historically, they can't seem to wait for Apple to make the next 'mis-step' as you so surmise.
Funny, but I thought the demo was pretty slick given the hardware and software are unfinished. Plus it has a 16x9 screen by the looks of it, which will make it a far better video device than the iPad.
The viewing angles are terrible as are the colours. They are also making 7" and 10" variants, the former clearly being worse for video and the latter only slightly better in terms of size (IPS > 16:9). It's going to be much worse in portrait mode.
And I can't believe you're slagging off vector based Google Maps. Do you seriously prefer 2D bitmaps? Come on, you're either trolling or just have zero technical knowledge.
Of course vectors are better here but not this implementation. Look how slow it was in the demo. If they can't rasterize the vectors quickly enough for smooth panning and zooming, I'd take bitmaps any day. It's the experience that matters at the end of the day above all else.
the plus is that you can caches the vector data on the device more easily as it takes up much less space but it will probably come to other devices too. Google isn't going to stop other devices using vector-based maps and Apple will implement it better because they can ensure hardware-acceleration, which just won't be possible on low-spec Android devices.
How did the competitions between dozens (hundreds?) of phone manufacturers drive innovation? What upset the entire apple cart was ... Apple and the iPhone.
If you only look at iPhone v1 perhaps.
You need to look at the difference between iPhone v1 and iPhone v4. Without any competition they wouldn't have pushed the platform as far and as quickly.
Same goes for the iPad.