Apple has never been this aggressive in going after a market. For the first time, they really are trading profit margin for market-share with the iPad.
And I'll bet this has a halo effect on both the iPhone and the Mac. An IT guy where I work recently bought an iPad and followed it up with a Verizon iPhone. I was *shocked* that he did that (the IT people where I work are all Windows guys and DIY gearheads when it comes to PCs, so I would have expected him to either get a WP7 or android phone). If this guy ever buys a Mac (which I can't believe will happen), then Bill Gates might have to go ask for his money back from all those kids in Africa.
I would encourage everyone to view the iPad 2 keynote. Towards the end Steve volunteers the formula for success. All the other manufacturers have to do is follow it. He said, "we at Apple are convinced to have a winning product you have to design the software and the hardware together. Not have one company making hardware and another company making the software."
There it is. The only company that seems to have taken this advice is HP with the purchase of Palm for their WebOS. Jason Snell of MacWorld seems to be impressed with what he has seen so far of the WebOS that is.
HP may have missed the boat though, in that having to wait too long to produce a tablet and bring it to market. In tech a year is like a lifetime and it is awfully hard to get back on track. Just ask Sony, RIM and MS as far as WindowsMobile goes.
I've been surprised by the iPad's success in vertical markets, i.e. business specific applications. My wife and I went to Carrabba's the other night and the hostesses had iPads to do something or other. And we've seen the stories about iPads being approved for use in cockpits. And all the pointy haired business types I know seem to be gaga for the iPad.
Windows based tablets have been around for YEARS, yet they never appeared "everywhere" like the iPad has.
Apple has a very nice development environment for iOS, a narrow product spread (as opposed to Windows' and Android's myriad hardware targets), and a well thought out UI.
Apple provides not just the widget (hardware), but a good software environment. In the handheld space, "it just works" (and keeps working) is very important. I don't think anyone else has that, and until they do, Apple will lead.
There it is. The only company that seems to have taken this advice is HP with the purchase of Palm for their WebOS. Jason Snell of MacWorld seems to be impressed with what he has seen so far of the WebOS that is.
It'll be really interesting to see what HP comes up with. If they can do a reasonable App Store clone and have a decent development environment, I think they'll at least be able to compete in the vertical market space. I recall the Palm guys being pretty sharp. Maybe they can squeeze some novel "gotta have" app or feature out of WebOS. (Like a super awesome HP calculator emulator! )
I wouldn't exactly use the term: "very aggressive". I would say 'aggressive'. If the iPad 2 came in at $399 for the 16GB Wi-Fi version, that would be "very aggressive".
And refurbs (like new with warranties) from the Apple Refurbished Store are only $349. So figure millions of used iPad 1s of the 16GB Wi-Fi model will reach new second wave adopters (followers) for below $300. So the diffusion of Apple's tablet solution into the more cautious late adopters (laggards) as well as lower income (ultra laggards and economically challenged) market segments IS unfolding at a VERY aggressive price point and UNPRECEDENTED diffusion rate.
And none of the first generation challengers (posers) have this ecosystem of superior "old" Apple iPad tablets trickling into that part of the market they may be trying to target with inferior tech, no Eco system and certainly no "cool" factor at all. First adopters (innovators) of other brands may in fact be laughed at and derided by their peers for making such a foolish choice leading to an unprecedented wave of returns for refunds across the board leading retailers to stop buying these challengers' failed attempts.
No hyperbole. We are a part of an historical first in the history of technological diffusion speed.
Thank you for one of the most thought-provoking comments I've ever read on AI.
bob
At least someone did muddle through the post and got something out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
Enjoyed your comments CGC. I agree, China is position to follow in the footsteps of Japan, Korea, etc.
I remember when "made in Japan" was a sign of low quality. But as you say, it hasn't been that way for a very long time. I also, remember the Korean cars of the 1980's. It was said that if you wanted to make an emergency stop in a Hyundai, all you had to do was turn on the air conditioning. Again, that is no longer the case.
As far as China. I agree it's seems almost inevitable that they will surpass the US as far as manufacturing (this year, I believe) and may have the largest economy (GDP) as soon as 2025. It really should be no surprise, they were the world leader for 13 of the last 18 centuries.
Having said this, the US still has more Nobel prizes awarded and receives more patents than any other country in the world. 18 of the top 20 Universities are in the US. And although China has 1.3 Billion people (and will undoubtedly have more tomorrow), the US with only, 310 million can "draw" and does from the ~7 billion on the planet. It is still true a majority of the world's population would like to get to America.
Best
One basic flaw that I see in Asian techno-industrial empire in many of the Asian countries is that they are so dependent on export. The exact reverse can be said of the United States.
India from what I read seems to focus on "satyagraha", from the example of Mahatma Ghandi to defeat the British empire, as the foundation of its economic policy. Thus, while it does export and becoming the techno- research center for many Western multi-nationals, India also takes pains to foster and develop from within. It has the 'market" from within to do so. in terms of software I read that they embrace open-source initiatives, so that they are not too dependent on proprietary patents.
China is doing the same to an extent. And, with 1.3 billion people, just imagine the local market it can tap even with just a slight increase in per capita income.
In many parts of the world, China has replaced the United States as the "investor-capital" source. And, partly it is due the growing demand of a population that is incrementally improving in terms of economic prosperity.
Many in my family and relatives have had good relations with Chinese (mostly) and Korean businessmen. One of my relatives who now reside in Singapore, was mistaken as the owner of a restaurant there, for some reason. But, after she corrected the mis-impression, the visiting Chinese businessman was so impressed with her, she was hired as a representative for their export-import agro-chemical business while working at home takng care of her family. In just a few years, she has expanded her reach to a number of Asian and Western countries.
Chinese businessmen tend place a lot of faith on people they can trust, and quite a number in my family prospered (not filthy rich) from such symbiotic relationships.
People aren't going to go to the cell store because they "need" a tablet (only to discover that 90% of what's available is running Android), they're going to go to Best Buy or Walmart or Target because they want a tablet. And in every one of those places there are going to be iPads, at as good or better prices, probably in better working order. And then beyond that all those Apple stores with iPads being shown in the best possible light.
Do you think Google will bring a Nexus tab to market? Maybe they will copy Microsoft and open some Apple... I mean, Google stores too. That will be hilarious. I'm sure there will be one here in OC if they do. I can't wait.
One can place a six-cylinder engine and all sorts of advanced gadgetry on a Hyundai, but it would be still a Hyundai and could not compare to a BMW or Mercedes Benz or even Toyota, at least for now.
I'd pick Hyundai/Kia over Toyota today. Toyota is cheapening features to increase profit - especially in their Lexus line.
Quote:
So, what is left among the purported features of Xoom that makes it technically superior to iPad2
I agree with this.
Quote:
The existing production line for the iPad has been strained. From what I read, they are banking on the new manufacturing plants in another city entirely to bolster the production. The bulk of sales of Apple products are being sold outside of the US. I doubt any of those analysts really have that much global research to understand purchasing patterns in other countries.
This is it in a nutshell - the only "governor" on Apple's growth at this point is how many they will be able to manufacture. Kind of like with the iPhone all along!
Apple owns the mobile market. Their vertical integration from design to selling and servicing can't be matched by anyone - not in this generation of products. In each generation, Apple increases the gap and siphons off more of the overall profit in each sector.
In order for someone to unseat them we are going to have to move to the next paradigm - "wearable" computers, human-integrated computers, cybernetics - whatever you want to call it. But for mobile, touchscreen devices it's going to be competition to see who is #2, #3, etc.
Everyone, including myself, was caught off guard with how successful iPad 1 would be. Even with all the hype I think people are still under estimating how successful the iPad 2 will be. Apple might just own the entire portable computer market by the time iPad 3 rolls around. And this is coming from a Windows guy...
Sorry, I wasn't caught off guard, and someone else predicted 15 million and probably a lot of us thought that was about right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I can't see anybody in their right mind buying a tablet if it's not called an iPad. Even though tablets are cheaper than most laptops and desktops, it still is a lot of money to most people, especially in these economic Obama times. And contrary to statements made by trolls, various fanboys and liars on the internet, people eventually vote with their wallets, and that's why the iPad is killing everybody else, and that's why it will continue to kill everybody
You just lost all your credibility with that Obama remark. See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paroxysm
Maybe I'm reading something into your post that you didn't intend, but is it your assertion that the Great Recession the world has experienced is somehow Obama's fault?
On CGC's original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyc
Thank you for one of the most thought-provoking comments I've ever read on AI.
bob
And one more great insight:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202
These cooperation and collaboration among Chinese, as "One People" is the reason why mainland China today is the second largest economic empire in the world. I do not think we would be alive to see it, but at the pace things are going in the United States (political gridlock coupled with extreme polarization). there is no "One America", I won't be surprised if China would displace the US as the number one economic power in the world within the second half of this century, if not sooner.
Don't discount the Koreans too.
The point here is that the competitors of Apple from these countries may not be doing as well now, but unlike Western companies, many Asian companies have the backing of their national industrialists and financial moguls, but also their people.
Let's not forget for example, that Apple is very dependent on Asian (China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea) techno-industrial empire. All it would take is a Chinese who has the vision akin to Steve Jobs, or some other builders of current multi-nationals. Unlike their parents, many Chinese of the elite classs have been educated or lived and traveled extensively in the Western countries. Even Steve Jobs have been influence by Asian culture in terms of his easthetics.
CGC
It's true the US has split into two highly polarized camps. People refer to a culture gap or even 'war' (so American to see it as a war), but really it seems more to be an evolutionary divide.
One group refuses to think globally, the other has evolved with the shrinking world and embraces the new view that America must interact and cooperate. As the one advances further, the other digs in its heels deeper.
Apple represents the advancing species. It not only sells appropriate consumer technology to an eager world (a first for an American company), but it sources expertise from around the world as well. Just look at the names on its patents.
We could have our own revolution in consciousness here, as is happening in North Africa and the Middle East, as a result of the ubiquity of mobile computers, but so far I haven't seen much evidence on this website. Still lots of cultural recalcitrants here.
A lot of people on here really have been overdosing on Koolaid.
Imagine for a moment that the iPad2 was made by an unfashionable company like Dell, then make an objective comparison between it and the iPad, and other competing tablets.
When you take away the Apple aura, it doesn't look like such a huge step from the iPad, and what's more other tablets aren't so far off either. It may be the market leader at present, but to assume no other tablet will take market share is ludicrous.
The iPad is a device that will mostly eat into sales of other Apple mobile devices and some desktop sales.
With VMware View Client now working natively on the iPad and pushing Windows, is there a need for a Windows tablet?
iPad has become the infamous Windows tablet, before the Windows tablet has made it to market and assuming VMWare works as advertised, Apple may have just secured even more market share. (Although it appears it only works in the vacinity of your own computer network running Windows.) Hopefully, VMFusion will come out for the iPad to allow Windows use on the go.
I know a lot of Android partisans are confident that Android based tablets will "take over" soon enough, "just like they did with phones." But the tablet market is different from the phone market in several key ways:
Interesting comment here .. specifically the "take over soon" part. If other manufacturers have this goal in mind, they will fail. And most do think this way ... it's all about the sale. With Apple, it's all about the product and all about the user experience.
After Jobs returned to Apple, they executed a famous ad campaign: Think Different. Apple did this. No one else did.
The thing most commentators are missing is that Apple did not invent the tablet. As with the smart phone, they entered an existing market. Unlike the smart phone, no one had made a success of it before. Creating a thing in the same form factor as the iPad will not create a viable competitor. It will create yet another flop along the lines of all the previous attempts at making a tablet that flopped.
The tablet is a mature but unsuccessful market. Failed tablets go back at least 10 years. For a serious competitor to iPod to arise, it has to address the reasons that no one wanted tablets before. Apple's model doesn't translate automatically to other vendors because their closed ecosystem approach doesn't suit the open development models others are used to. That's not to say there is no other model; a rival product to be successful needs to find a way to accomplish Apple's positives: clean user experience, high reliability ? something you don't get on a warmed-over Windows or smart phone platform.
One of the key aspects of the iPod model, the notion of curated apps, can work just as well in a more open environment. A clean consistent user experience is a little harder than ensuring apps are well tested before they are certified as safe to use, but that can also be done in an open model.
Apple has an iPad 2 apps page up here. I suggest taking a look. In particular, look at iMovie and GarageBand, and how FaceTime and AirPlay are implemented.
Now, my question is: who is going to write apps with remotely this level of sophistication, polish and functionality for Android Tablets? Apple has been able to leverage the work they've done on iMovie and GarageBand to make these iPad apps, Android and Palm/HP and RIM have nothing like that. Creating something like this is a huge investment, does anything think that third party developers are going to put in the effort to bring forth an iMovie level app for the nascent Android tablet market?
Or even good old Pages. Call it limited all you want, but where's the Android word processing program with anything like its power and style? Where's the presentation creation software for Android of any description? Some folks want to talk about the limitations of those programs on the iPad while ignoring the fact that the competition has nothing at all that compares.
It's ironic, because it appears to me that some of the same people who disparage the iPad for being "just a media consumption device" or "toy" are simultaneously sanguine that an Android tablet that can access the usual roster of phone-centric type web apps, as well as a few marquee titles like Angry Birds, is well situated to compete with Apple. "How many Apps does anyone really need?" they say.
But here's Apple, pushing the iPad into desktop media creation areas. So the "toy" can edit movies and record, edit and mix multitrack music, while my Android tablet is supposed to be compelling because it has widgets and the home screen is loaded with info. In other words, a well executed media consumption and mobile communications device.
How many musicians are going to pick, say, a Xoom over an iPad once they get a look at GarageBand? How many budding directors who have seem iMovie? The Google services are all available on Android handsets, so what's the general case to be made for a tablet that replicates what my phone can do without bringing much additionally to the party? Do I really need to spend 6 or 7 hundred dollars to have a device that can give me weather updates and email and chat and some games? Because I thought that was what phones were for.
While true, that the tapes were shorter, that was not the main reason that Beta lost the consumer war. The main reason was that Sony was short-sighted and refused to license their technology. JVC, on the other hand, licensed their VHS technology to anyone and everyone (even Sony, eventually). The price/feature competition amongst the VHS brands made it increasingly difficult for Sony to compete. Those who knew the difference still bought Betamax, but that market was too small to support continued production. And Betacam, a superior version of Betamax (with tapes running faster - only 30 minute cassettes) was the broadcast standard for many years.
Point of order. As nearly as I have been able to ascertain (and I did quite a bit of research on this subject years ago), JVC never licensed any VHS technology. They retained a few related hardware patents, but that's all. Try to find a copyright or patent notice any any VHS tape or device.
Let's not forget for example, that Apple is very dependent on Asian (China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea) techno-industrial empire. All it would take is a Chinese who has the vision akin to Steve Jobs, or some other builders of current multi-nationals. Unlike their parents, many Chinese of the elite classs have been educated or lived and traveled extensively in the Western countries. Even Steve Jobs have been influence by Asian culture in terms of his easthetics.
CGC
I can tell you are a college freshman. You write like one. I know your sociology prof wants a 20-page paper next week, double-spaced, but on message boards, brevity is next to godliness.
I think you underestimate people's understanding of the competition from Asia. What you didn't mention is that in the early 90s people were asking when Japan would be #1. Kids were studying japanese in school. Japan was where China is now. And, now look at the Japanese! Mired in stagflation.
Anyhow, Japan didn't have it. They don't have the software chops or the creativity taught in schools to do it. What makes you think South Korea or China have it? BTW, why didn't you mention India?
By the way, my family is one of those Chinese families that fled the Communists in 1939 for Taiwan. Actually, contrary to what you wrote, back then, quite a few Chinese were educated in the West, as were my parents.
Apple has an iPad 2 apps page up here. I suggest taking a look. In particular, look at iMovie and GarageBand, and how FaceTime and AirPlay are implemented.
Now, my question is: who is going to write apps with remotely this level of sophistication, polish and functionality for Android Tablets? Apple has been able to leverage the work they've done on iMovie and GarageBand to make these iPad apps, Android and Palm/HP and RIM have nothing like that. Creating something like this is a huge investment, does anything think that third party developers are going to put in the effort to bring forth an iMovie level app for the nascent Android tablet market?
Or even good old Pages. Call it limited all you want, but where's the Android word processing program with anything like its power and style? Where's the presentation creation software for Android of any description? Some folks want to talk about the limitations of those programs on the iPad while ignoring the fact that the competition has nothing at all that compares.
It's ironic, because it appears to me that some of the same people who disparage the iPad for being "just a media consumption device" or "toy" are simultaneously sanguine that an Android tablet that can access the usual roster of phone-centric type web apps, as well as a few marquee titles like Angry Birds, is well situated to compete with Apple. "How many Apps does anyone really need?" they say.
But here's Apple, pushing the iPad into desktop media creation areas. So the "toy" can edit movies and record, edit and mix multitrack music, while my Android tablet is supposed to be compelling because it has widgets and the home screen is loaded with info. In other words, a well executed media consumption and mobile communications device.
How many musicians are going to pick, say, a Xoom over an iPad once they get a look at GarageBand? How many budding directors who have seem iMovie? The Google services are all available on Android handsets, so what's the general case to be made for a tablet that replicates what my phone can do without bringing much additionally to the party? Do I really need to spend 6 or 7 hundred dollars to have a device that can give me weather updates and email and chat and some games? Because I thought that was what phones were for.
Exactly, all the tech spec is BS unless it has the apps to harness it.
Since, it's an open OS then there must somebody who will invest in writing imovie, garage band, pages, keynotes etc .., with Ads as revenue.
Exactly, all the tech spec is BS unless it has the apps to harness it.
Since, it's an open OS then there must somebody who will invest in writing imovie, garage band, pages, keynotes etc .., with Ads as revenue.
I imagine that someone will write some kind of video editing software, or some kind of sound recording software.
But I question whether or not the ad supported model gives enough incentive for an independent developer to invest at the level necessary to create programs that actually compete with GarageBand and iMovie.
Apple has subsidized the development of those two programs as part of the value added proposition of its Mac platform. There are just a lot of programing hours and a lot of refinement along the way that have led to this point.
The software quality differential has always been apparent in the Mac vs. PC world, but the conventional wisdom has been that "good enough" carried the day given that PCs were cheaper and more broadly entrenched.
But why settle for good enough when the iPad is the same price or less? When its just as readily available, with more accessories and more software? "Openness" doesn't magically create great software or a great user experience, any more than it creates a financial incentive to make big, expensive to develop applications with deep functionality. Deep pockets and a willingness to invest heavily in a great, integrated user experience do that.
Google is willing to invest in anything that extends the reach of Google's advertising business-- i.e. online services. Developers are willing to invest in smaller apps with a quick pay-off, or games.
Again, who's going build a GarageBand for Android, on even anything close to GarageBand? And to the extent that that doesn't happen, what does that mean for the competitive fortunes of Android based tablets?
I imagine that someone will write some kind of video editing software, or some kind of sound recording software.
But I question whether or not the ad supported model gives enough incentive for an independent developer to invest at the level necessary to create programs that actually compete with GarageBand and iMovie.
Apple has subsidized the development of those two programs as part of the value added proposition of its Mac platform. There are just a lot of programing hours and a lot of refinement along the way that have led to this point.
The software quality differential has always been apparent in the Mac vs. PC world, but the conventional wisdom has been that "good enough" carried the day given that PCs were cheaper and more broadly entrenched.
But why settle for good enough when the iPad is the same price or less? When its just as readily available, with more accessories and more software? "Openness" doesn't magically create great software or a great user experience, any more than it creates a financial incentive to make big, expensive to develop applications with deep functionality. Deep pockets and a willingness to invest heavily in a great, integrated user experience do that.
Google is willing to invest in anything that extends the reach of Google's advertising business-- i.e. online services. Developers are willing to invest in smaller apps with a quick pay-off, or games.
Again, who's going build a GarageBand for Android, on even anything close to GarageBand? And to the extent that that doesn't happen, what does that mean for the competitive fortunes of Android based tablets?
We may something unfortunate with Apple?s software development in the future. Many years ago the 3rd-party apps weren?t robust and Apple trying to rebuild itself had to create and distribute apps that would attract users. These were/are great apps, but now we have a huge growth trend in Mac sales and Mac OS development. Does Apple need to continue making these great apps to attract users to the platform? Will it most cost effective for them to forego these cost centers and focus on generating sales in other ways? I hope they continue making great apps for their devices but the history of business is not in their favor.
Comments
And I'll bet this has a halo effect on both the iPhone and the Mac. An IT guy where I work recently bought an iPad and followed it up with a Verizon iPhone. I was *shocked* that he did that (the IT people where I work are all Windows guys and DIY gearheads when it comes to PCs, so I would have expected him to either get a WP7 or android phone). If this guy ever buys a Mac (which I can't believe will happen), then Bill Gates might have to go ask for his money back from all those kids in Africa.
There it is. The only company that seems to have taken this advice is HP with the purchase of Palm for their WebOS. Jason Snell of MacWorld seems to be impressed with what he has seen so far of the WebOS that is.
HP may have missed the boat though, in that having to wait too long to produce a tablet and bring it to market. In tech a year is like a lifetime and it is awfully hard to get back on track. Just ask Sony, RIM and MS as far as WindowsMobile goes.
Best
Windows based tablets have been around for YEARS, yet they never appeared "everywhere" like the iPad has.
Apple has a very nice development environment for iOS, a narrow product spread (as opposed to Windows' and Android's myriad hardware targets), and a well thought out UI.
Apple provides not just the widget (hardware), but a good software environment. In the handheld space, "it just works" (and keeps working) is very important. I don't think anyone else has that, and until they do, Apple will lead.
- Jasen.
There it is. The only company that seems to have taken this advice is HP with the purchase of Palm for their WebOS. Jason Snell of MacWorld seems to be impressed with what he has seen so far of the WebOS that is.
It'll be really interesting to see what HP comes up with. If they can do a reasonable App Store clone and have a decent development environment, I think they'll at least be able to compete in the vertical market space. I recall the Palm guys being pretty sharp. Maybe they can squeeze some novel "gotta have" app or feature out of WebOS. (Like a super awesome HP calculator emulator!
- Jasen.
I wouldn't exactly use the term: "very aggressive". I would say 'aggressive'. If the iPad 2 came in at $399 for the 16GB Wi-Fi version, that would be "very aggressive".
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...co=MjEzODE4NzQ
True. The iPad is $399 for 16GB Wi-Fi version
And refurbs (like new with warranties) from the Apple Refurbished Store are only $349. So figure millions of used iPad 1s of the 16GB Wi-Fi model will reach new second wave adopters (followers) for below $300. So the diffusion of Apple's tablet solution into the more cautious late adopters (laggards) as well as lower income (ultra laggards and economically challenged) market segments IS unfolding at a VERY aggressive price point and UNPRECEDENTED diffusion rate.
And none of the first generation challengers (posers) have this ecosystem of superior "old" Apple iPad tablets trickling into that part of the market they may be trying to target with inferior tech, no Eco system and certainly no "cool" factor at all. First adopters (innovators) of other brands may in fact be laughed at and derided by their peers for making such a foolish choice leading to an unprecedented wave of returns for refunds across the board leading retailers to stop buying these challengers' failed attempts.
No hyperbole. We are a part of an historical first in the history of technological diffusion speed.
Thank you for one of the most thought-provoking comments I've ever read on AI.
bob
At least someone did muddle through the post and got something out of it.
Enjoyed your comments CGC. I agree, China is position to follow in the footsteps of Japan, Korea, etc.
I remember when "made in Japan" was a sign of low quality. But as you say, it hasn't been that way for a very long time. I also, remember the Korean cars of the 1980's. It was said that if you wanted to make an emergency stop in a Hyundai, all you had to do was turn on the air conditioning. Again, that is no longer the case.
As far as China. I agree it's seems almost inevitable that they will surpass the US as far as manufacturing (this year, I believe) and may have the largest economy (GDP) as soon as 2025. It really should be no surprise, they were the world leader for 13 of the last 18 centuries.
Having said this, the US still has more Nobel prizes awarded and receives more patents than any other country in the world. 18 of the top 20 Universities are in the US. And although China has 1.3 Billion people (and will undoubtedly have more tomorrow), the US with only, 310 million can "draw" and does from the ~7 billion on the planet. It is still true a majority of the world's population would like to get to America.
Best
One basic flaw that I see in Asian techno-industrial empire in many of the Asian countries is that they are so dependent on export. The exact reverse can be said of the United States.
India from what I read seems to focus on "satyagraha", from the example of Mahatma Ghandi to defeat the British empire, as the foundation of its economic policy. Thus, while it does export and becoming the techno- research center for many Western multi-nationals, India also takes pains to foster and develop from within. It has the 'market" from within to do so. in terms of software I read that they embrace open-source initiatives, so that they are not too dependent on proprietary patents.
China is doing the same to an extent. And, with 1.3 billion people, just imagine the local market it can tap even with just a slight increase in per capita income.
In many parts of the world, China has replaced the United States as the "investor-capital" source. And, partly it is due the growing demand of a population that is incrementally improving in terms of economic prosperity.
Many in my family and relatives have had good relations with Chinese (mostly) and Korean businessmen. One of my relatives who now reside in Singapore, was mistaken as the owner of a restaurant there, for some reason. But, after she corrected the mis-impression, the visiting Chinese businessman was so impressed with her, she was hired as a representative for their export-import agro-chemical business while working at home takng care of her family. In just a few years, she has expanded her reach to a number of Asian and Western countries.
Chinese businessmen tend place a lot of faith on people they can trust, and quite a number in my family prospered (not filthy rich) from such symbiotic relationships.
CGC
People aren't going to go to the cell store because they "need" a tablet (only to discover that 90% of what's available is running Android), they're going to go to Best Buy or Walmart or Target because they want a tablet. And in every one of those places there are going to be iPads, at as good or better prices, probably in better working order. And then beyond that all those Apple stores with iPads being shown in the best possible light.
Do you think Google will bring a Nexus tab to market? Maybe they will copy Microsoft and open some Apple... I mean, Google stores too. That will be hilarious. I'm sure there will be one here in OC if they do. I can't wait.
One can place a six-cylinder engine and all sorts of advanced gadgetry on a Hyundai, but it would be still a Hyundai and could not compare to a BMW or Mercedes Benz or even Toyota, at least for now.
I'd pick Hyundai/Kia over Toyota today. Toyota is cheapening features to increase profit - especially in their Lexus line.
So, what is left among the purported features of Xoom that makes it technically superior to iPad2
I agree with this.
The existing production line for the iPad has been strained. From what I read, they are banking on the new manufacturing plants in another city entirely to bolster the production. The bulk of sales of Apple products are being sold outside of the US. I doubt any of those analysts really have that much global research to understand purchasing patterns in other countries.
This is it in a nutshell - the only "governor" on Apple's growth at this point is how many they will be able to manufacture. Kind of like with the iPhone all along!
Apple owns the mobile market. Their vertical integration from design to selling and servicing can't be matched by anyone - not in this generation of products. In each generation, Apple increases the gap and siphons off more of the overall profit in each sector.
In order for someone to unseat them we are going to have to move to the next paradigm - "wearable" computers, human-integrated computers, cybernetics - whatever you want to call it. But for mobile, touchscreen devices it's going to be competition to see who is #2, #3, etc.
Everyone, including myself, was caught off guard with how successful iPad 1 would be. Even with all the hype I think people are still under estimating how successful the iPad 2 will be. Apple might just own the entire portable computer market by the time iPad 3 rolls around. And this is coming from a Windows guy...
Sorry, I wasn't caught off guard, and someone else predicted 15 million and probably a lot of us thought that was about right.
I can't see anybody in their right mind buying a tablet if it's not called an iPad. Even though tablets are cheaper than most laptops and desktops, it still is a lot of money to most people, especially in these economic Obama times. And contrary to statements made by trolls, various fanboys and liars on the internet, people eventually vote with their wallets, and that's why the iPad is killing everybody else, and that's why it will continue to kill everybody
You just lost all your credibility with that Obama remark. See below.
Maybe I'm reading something into your post that you didn't intend, but is it your assertion that the Great Recession the world has experienced is somehow Obama's fault?
On CGC's original post:
Thank you for one of the most thought-provoking comments I've ever read on AI.
bob
And one more great insight:
These cooperation and collaboration among Chinese, as "One People" is the reason why mainland China today is the second largest economic empire in the world. I do not think we would be alive to see it, but at the pace things are going in the United States (political gridlock coupled with extreme polarization). there is no "One America", I won't be surprised if China would displace the US as the number one economic power in the world within the second half of this century, if not sooner.
Don't discount the Koreans too.
The point here is that the competitors of Apple from these countries may not be doing as well now, but unlike Western companies, many Asian companies have the backing of their national industrialists and financial moguls, but also their people.
Let's not forget for example, that Apple is very dependent on Asian (China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea) techno-industrial empire. All it would take is a Chinese who has the vision akin to Steve Jobs, or some other builders of current multi-nationals. Unlike their parents, many Chinese of the elite classs have been educated or lived and traveled extensively in the Western countries. Even Steve Jobs have been influence by Asian culture in terms of his easthetics.
CGC
It's true the US has split into two highly polarized camps. People refer to a culture gap or even 'war' (so American to see it as a war), but really it seems more to be an evolutionary divide.
One group refuses to think globally, the other has evolved with the shrinking world and embraces the new view that America must interact and cooperate. As the one advances further, the other digs in its heels deeper.
Apple represents the advancing species. It not only sells appropriate consumer technology to an eager world (a first for an American company), but it sources expertise from around the world as well. Just look at the names on its patents.
We could have our own revolution in consciousness here, as is happening in North Africa and the Middle East, as a result of the ubiquity of mobile computers, but so far I haven't seen much evidence on this website. Still lots of cultural recalcitrants here.
So thanks for bringing up a new angle, CGC.
Imagine for a moment that the iPad2 was made by an unfashionable company like Dell, then make an objective comparison between it and the iPad, and other competing tablets.
When you take away the Apple aura, it doesn't look like such a huge step from the iPad, and what's more other tablets aren't so far off either. It may be the market leader at present, but to assume no other tablet will take market share is ludicrous.
The iPad is a device that will mostly eat into sales of other Apple mobile devices and some desktop sales.
iPad has become the infamous Windows tablet, before the Windows tablet has made it to market and assuming VMWare works as advertised, Apple may have just secured even more market share. (Although it appears it only works in the vacinity of your own computer network running Windows.) Hopefully, VMFusion will come out for the iPad to allow Windows use on the go.
Link: VMWare View Client
I know a lot of Android partisans are confident that Android based tablets will "take over" soon enough, "just like they did with phones." But the tablet market is different from the phone market in several key ways:
Interesting comment here .. specifically the "take over soon" part. If other manufacturers have this goal in mind, they will fail. And most do think this way ... it's all about the sale. With Apple, it's all about the product and all about the user experience.
After Jobs returned to Apple, they executed a famous ad campaign: Think Different. Apple did this. No one else did.
The tablet is a mature but unsuccessful market. Failed tablets go back at least 10 years. For a serious competitor to iPod to arise, it has to address the reasons that no one wanted tablets before. Apple's model doesn't translate automatically to other vendors because their closed ecosystem approach doesn't suit the open development models others are used to. That's not to say there is no other model; a rival product to be successful needs to find a way to accomplish Apple's positives: clean user experience, high reliability ? something you don't get on a warmed-over Windows or smart phone platform.
One of the key aspects of the iPod model, the notion of curated apps, can work just as well in a more open environment. A clean consistent user experience is a little harder than ensuring apps are well tested before they are certified as safe to use, but that can also be done in an open model.
Now, my question is: who is going to write apps with remotely this level of sophistication, polish and functionality for Android Tablets? Apple has been able to leverage the work they've done on iMovie and GarageBand to make these iPad apps, Android and Palm/HP and RIM have nothing like that. Creating something like this is a huge investment, does anything think that third party developers are going to put in the effort to bring forth an iMovie level app for the nascent Android tablet market?
Or even good old Pages. Call it limited all you want, but where's the Android word processing program with anything like its power and style? Where's the presentation creation software for Android of any description? Some folks want to talk about the limitations of those programs on the iPad while ignoring the fact that the competition has nothing at all that compares.
It's ironic, because it appears to me that some of the same people who disparage the iPad for being "just a media consumption device" or "toy" are simultaneously sanguine that an Android tablet that can access the usual roster of phone-centric type web apps, as well as a few marquee titles like Angry Birds, is well situated to compete with Apple. "How many Apps does anyone really need?" they say.
But here's Apple, pushing the iPad into desktop media creation areas. So the "toy" can edit movies and record, edit and mix multitrack music, while my Android tablet is supposed to be compelling because it has widgets and the home screen is loaded with info. In other words, a well executed media consumption and mobile communications device.
How many musicians are going to pick, say, a Xoom over an iPad once they get a look at GarageBand? How many budding directors who have seem iMovie? The Google services are all available on Android handsets, so what's the general case to be made for a tablet that replicates what my phone can do without bringing much additionally to the party? Do I really need to spend 6 or 7 hundred dollars to have a device that can give me weather updates and email and chat and some games? Because I thought that was what phones were for.
While true, that the tapes were shorter, that was not the main reason that Beta lost the consumer war. The main reason was that Sony was short-sighted and refused to license their technology. JVC, on the other hand, licensed their VHS technology to anyone and everyone (even Sony, eventually). The price/feature competition amongst the VHS brands made it increasingly difficult for Sony to compete. Those who knew the difference still bought Betamax, but that market was too small to support continued production. And Betacam, a superior version of Betamax (with tapes running faster - only 30 minute cassettes) was the broadcast standard for many years.
Point of order. As nearly as I have been able to ascertain (and I did quite a bit of research on this subject years ago), JVC never licensed any VHS technology. They retained a few related hardware patents, but that's all. Try to find a copyright or patent notice any any VHS tape or device.
...
Let's not forget for example, that Apple is very dependent on Asian (China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea) techno-industrial empire. All it would take is a Chinese who has the vision akin to Steve Jobs, or some other builders of current multi-nationals. Unlike their parents, many Chinese of the elite classs have been educated or lived and traveled extensively in the Western countries. Even Steve Jobs have been influence by Asian culture in terms of his easthetics.
CGC
I can tell you are a college freshman. You write like one. I know your sociology prof wants a 20-page paper next week, double-spaced, but on message boards, brevity is next to godliness.
I think you underestimate people's understanding of the competition from Asia. What you didn't mention is that in the early 90s people were asking when Japan would be #1. Kids were studying japanese in school. Japan was where China is now. And, now look at the Japanese! Mired in stagflation.
Anyhow, Japan didn't have it. They don't have the software chops or the creativity taught in schools to do it. What makes you think South Korea or China have it? BTW, why didn't you mention India?
By the way, my family is one of those Chinese families that fled the Communists in 1939 for Taiwan. Actually, contrary to what you wrote, back then, quite a few Chinese were educated in the West, as were my parents.
You just lost all your credibility with that Obama remark. See below.
It's true that I am not too impressed by Obama. As a matter of fact, I think that he's horrible. Sue me. Obama is the JooJoo tablet of Presidents.
Apple has an iPad 2 apps page up here. I suggest taking a look. In particular, look at iMovie and GarageBand, and how FaceTime and AirPlay are implemented.
Now, my question is: who is going to write apps with remotely this level of sophistication, polish and functionality for Android Tablets? Apple has been able to leverage the work they've done on iMovie and GarageBand to make these iPad apps, Android and Palm/HP and RIM have nothing like that. Creating something like this is a huge investment, does anything think that third party developers are going to put in the effort to bring forth an iMovie level app for the nascent Android tablet market?
Or even good old Pages. Call it limited all you want, but where's the Android word processing program with anything like its power and style? Where's the presentation creation software for Android of any description? Some folks want to talk about the limitations of those programs on the iPad while ignoring the fact that the competition has nothing at all that compares.
It's ironic, because it appears to me that some of the same people who disparage the iPad for being "just a media consumption device" or "toy" are simultaneously sanguine that an Android tablet that can access the usual roster of phone-centric type web apps, as well as a few marquee titles like Angry Birds, is well situated to compete with Apple. "How many Apps does anyone really need?" they say.
But here's Apple, pushing the iPad into desktop media creation areas. So the "toy" can edit movies and record, edit and mix multitrack music, while my Android tablet is supposed to be compelling because it has widgets and the home screen is loaded with info. In other words, a well executed media consumption and mobile communications device.
How many musicians are going to pick, say, a Xoom over an iPad once they get a look at GarageBand? How many budding directors who have seem iMovie? The Google services are all available on Android handsets, so what's the general case to be made for a tablet that replicates what my phone can do without bringing much additionally to the party? Do I really need to spend 6 or 7 hundred dollars to have a device that can give me weather updates and email and chat and some games? Because I thought that was what phones were for.
Exactly, all the tech spec is BS unless it has the apps to harness it.
Since, it's an open OS then there must somebody who will invest in writing imovie, garage band, pages, keynotes etc .., with Ads as revenue.
Exactly, all the tech spec is BS unless it has the apps to harness it.
Since, it's an open OS then there must somebody who will invest in writing imovie, garage band, pages, keynotes etc .., with Ads as revenue.
I imagine that someone will write some kind of video editing software, or some kind of sound recording software.
But I question whether or not the ad supported model gives enough incentive for an independent developer to invest at the level necessary to create programs that actually compete with GarageBand and iMovie.
Apple has subsidized the development of those two programs as part of the value added proposition of its Mac platform. There are just a lot of programing hours and a lot of refinement along the way that have led to this point.
The software quality differential has always been apparent in the Mac vs. PC world, but the conventional wisdom has been that "good enough" carried the day given that PCs were cheaper and more broadly entrenched.
But why settle for good enough when the iPad is the same price or less? When its just as readily available, with more accessories and more software? "Openness" doesn't magically create great software or a great user experience, any more than it creates a financial incentive to make big, expensive to develop applications with deep functionality. Deep pockets and a willingness to invest heavily in a great, integrated user experience do that.
Google is willing to invest in anything that extends the reach of Google's advertising business-- i.e. online services. Developers are willing to invest in smaller apps with a quick pay-off, or games.
Again, who's going build a GarageBand for Android, on even anything close to GarageBand? And to the extent that that doesn't happen, what does that mean for the competitive fortunes of Android based tablets?
I imagine that someone will write some kind of video editing software, or some kind of sound recording software.
But I question whether or not the ad supported model gives enough incentive for an independent developer to invest at the level necessary to create programs that actually compete with GarageBand and iMovie.
Apple has subsidized the development of those two programs as part of the value added proposition of its Mac platform. There are just a lot of programing hours and a lot of refinement along the way that have led to this point.
The software quality differential has always been apparent in the Mac vs. PC world, but the conventional wisdom has been that "good enough" carried the day given that PCs were cheaper and more broadly entrenched.
But why settle for good enough when the iPad is the same price or less? When its just as readily available, with more accessories and more software? "Openness" doesn't magically create great software or a great user experience, any more than it creates a financial incentive to make big, expensive to develop applications with deep functionality. Deep pockets and a willingness to invest heavily in a great, integrated user experience do that.
Google is willing to invest in anything that extends the reach of Google's advertising business-- i.e. online services. Developers are willing to invest in smaller apps with a quick pay-off, or games.
Again, who's going build a GarageBand for Android, on even anything close to GarageBand? And to the extent that that doesn't happen, what does that mean for the competitive fortunes of Android based tablets?
We may something unfortunate with Apple?s software development in the future. Many years ago the 3rd-party apps weren?t robust and Apple trying to rebuild itself had to create and distribute apps that would attract users. These were/are great apps, but now we have a huge growth trend in Mac sales and Mac OS development. Does Apple need to continue making these great apps to attract users to the platform? Will it most cost effective for them to forego these cost centers and focus on generating sales in other ways? I hope they continue making great apps for their devices but the history of business is not in their favor.