Steve Jobs was ?annoyed and depressed? over initial reaction to iPad launch

13468912

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 222
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    What did Jobs expect? He could have stopped working years ago and would have lived comfortably. You don't go the to lackey for advice...what do they know?



    I'm not at all sure that he was "going to the lackey for advice" .... more like confirmation that he had indeed correctly predicted, once again, what the public wanted. He was well known as being a perfectionist, after all ..... and I'm sure that a misstep on his part would not go over well.
  • Reply 102 of 222
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    How many sites have Flash that don't either have a HTML5 based mobile version or a free app.



    all that porn, dude.
  • Reply 103 of 222
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,142member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    I'm not at all sure that he was "going to the lackey for advice" .... more like confirmation that he had indeed correctly predicted, once again, what the public wanted. He was well known as being a perfectionist, after all ..... and I'm sure that a misstep on his part would not go over well.



    True...I think Jobs was an artists that wanted others to see what he saw and admire and I imagine he was off put by those who didn't see it.



    And let's face it...those coving the Tech Industry can fall into the trap of becoming jaded and not really realizing what technology interfaces with the common consumer that doesn't get early access to products.
  • Reply 104 of 222
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,142member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    The media criticism was warranted, and still is. It still isn't much more than a big iPod Touch. Lucky for Apple, there are millions of people for whom a big iPod Touch is just what they want.



    Sure the criticism was warranted but 18 months later and millions of iPads later shows the disconnect between the Media and the consumer. Apple was right (again) they were wrong. People "did" want a larger iPad Touch and Apple was smart enough not to recreate the wheel.



    Actually they were even more behind as the iPad design was started first.



    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817...id=w1YdHm34goP
  • Reply 105 of 222
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by huntson View Post


    Everyone is still missing the point. The media was right then and they would still be right if they stuck to their guns. Steve managed to sell something that is not as useful as something else he could shave sold. Imagine he came out with an iPad that ran a real OS and all that other shit. That would have been to everyone's expectations. Still, despite the large adoption, it does so little and he has somehow managed to force people to accept less.



    No the media was stupid. When they announced the price, there was an immediate HOLY SHIT!! reaction as everyone and their mother had predicted at least $1000 for the lowest price. Then they kicked into "Wait Apple is selling something relatively cheap, there must be something wrong with it" mode and started lambasting it. It launched w/a thousand apps already iPad specific. What did Android tablets launch with? 30? It didn't have multitasking, big fucking deal. It did what people expected. They could listen to music, watch movies, surf the web, play with apps. It was perfectly useful from day 1 and has only gotten more so since. We have one of the originals and we're talking about both getting iPad 3s in the spring.
  • Reply 106 of 222
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    On the other hand, if the media in general begins to fawn over every new Apple release and grant Apple a free pass to deliver less than the best products, it's likely the the company will degenerate as rapidly as the health of a well fed monarch.



    Do you honestly think it's criticism that drives people to do better? No, it is the desire to achieve their own vision. Critics can take *no* credit.
  • Reply 107 of 222
    rainrain Posts: 538member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tdws View Post


    "With Apple now being run by Tim Cook and the executive team Jobs assembled and orchestrated, it remains to be see if the media will continue to mock and denigrate its products while enthusiastically recommending alternatives that are almost always inferior, poorly designed and deeply flawed. "



    You have GOT to be kidding.



    People who have been around for longer than a few years will remember that every Apple launch of ANYTHING is greeted with squealing ecstasy from fanboys, magazine cover stories bordering on outright fellatio, and standing ovations from everyone else.



    The idea that Apple is the underdog in the media coverage department is flat-out false.



    Even Apple would agree with me -- and I'm a total fan.



    Amen

    This article is pathetic and total fanboi fodder.

    Tallest Shill will feel elation thou...
  • Reply 108 of 222
    Um, I accept your Apple partisanship but the Gizmodo incident was not well handled by Apple and raised some legitimate questions about the heavy-handed tactics employed by Apple (which continue). the relationship of Apple and the San Mateo County Police, and the impartiality of the Police and DAs Office.



    I think it speaks for itself that ultimately no charges were filed, no civil lawsuits pressed and really, no harm done - iPhone 4 went on to break records. And the remarks by the San Mateo DA when dropping the case were actually unprofessional and did not remove the egg from their faces in light of what preceded, including the strong-arm tactics used against Jason Chen.



    Lumping Gizmodo together with the Instant Enemies of Apple is also a but incredible if you go back to read the Gizmodo reviews of Apple products (and their competitors products for contrast) which are overall positive.



    And then there is the bit about Woz dropping by the Gizmodo office to make nice with Jason Chen, will you next be attacking him as an Apple Hater?





    I think you made your point with the remainder of the other instant pundit reviews but failed to make the case against Gizmodo: their initial impression of the iPad HERE and HERE was objective and generally positive, and in fact the one Gizmodo staffer who felt differently felt compelled to make his case HERE with is on point.



    Calm down! Apple will survive. Really, it's going to be OK.
  • Reply 109 of 222
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 110 of 222
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,126member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by huntson View Post


    Everyone is still missing the point. The media was right then and they would still be right if they stuck to their guns. Steve managed to sell something that is not as useful as something else he could shave sold. Imagine he came out with an iPad that ran a real OS and all that other shit. That would have been to everyone's expectations. Still, despite the large adoption, it does so little and he has somehow managed to force people to accept less.



    If you knew what the hell you were taking about maybe your thoughts might be worthy of consideration. A real OS such as what? Oh right, you mean the one that doesn't exist yet that will run on hardware that also doesn't exist yet.
  • Reply 111 of 222
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 314member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


    But the original criticism was warranted, it basically was a giant ipod Touch at launch and Apple improved the iPad immensely since then. They launched a tablet that initially couldn't even multitask. Now it's world class leading product.



    You just don't have a clue. Of course the initial iPad can and does multitask. If you knew how to look under the hood you would see that dozens of tasks are running at the "same" time. What it didn't and still doesn't do is allow more than one third party app to run. There are hooks that allow audio to run in the background but that was true from the beginning as Apple's "iTunes player" ran in the background since the original launch. That hook was exposed to third parties as Apple and third party developers had more time to tend to more finishing touches. But iOS has been multitasking since day 1.



    Running arbitrarily many third party apps in the background is all about battery life. It was a concern at launch and remains a valid design issue. The original iPad was and is a world class product. People who try to rewrite history are in an unenviable position since there are so many iPads in daily use by people who know what horsesh*t this sort of revisionism represents.



    For the record, the iPad2 is a nice speed bump (significant graphics speed bump) with slightly slimmer, slightly lighter design but nothing dramatic has changed. It is like saying this year's MacBook Pro is great but last year's was a heap of mediocrity.
  • Reply 112 of 222
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,126member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iKol View Post


    Well. There really isnt any reason now with an A5 processor we at least can't have an option to turn on or off Flash. Lack of Flash does cripple the device somewhat.



    Like it or not flash is yesterday's technology.
  • Reply 113 of 222
    sdbryansdbryan Posts: 314member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by huntson View Post


    Everyone is still missing the point. The media was right then and they would still be right if they stuck to their guns. Steve managed to sell something that is not as useful as something else he could shave sold. Imagine he came out with an iPad that ran a real OS and all that other shit. That would have been to everyone's expectations. Still, despite the large adoption, it does so little and he has somehow managed to force people to accept less.



    Here, I'll give you a clue since you obviously can't buy one. Under the hood the iPad (iPhone and iPod touch) is running BSD Unix. Is that enough of a "real" OS for you? It is a device designed for people who are not interested in launching a bash shell and running vi in order to debug some shell scripts so those aspects are not exposed. But if you "jailbreak" your iOS device you certainly can. There were many aspects of the iPhone and iPad that were huge factors in their breakthrough success. Arguably the most important was that a company finally managed to squeeze a "real" rather than a "toy" OS into a mass market mobile device. So not only are you wrong, you are spectacularly wrong.



    When I say squeeze, I do mean squeeze. While Mac OS X is (and has been for years) certified to be a compliant Unix OS, there is not a similar designation for iOS. There are probably design choices associated with its battery power limitations and such that would prevent it from receiving such certification for now. But the relationship between the two OS's is not just that they come from the same company. They are built on the same foundation.
  • Reply 114 of 222
    Very nicely argued article, Daniel.



    An interesting analysis of the childishness of the tech media's attitudes to Apple.



    A.
  • Reply 115 of 222
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    hate to pile on you, but Flash is so ... history. the Fat Lady has sung.



    Flash is like the muscle cars of the 60s. Fun to drive but often found wrapped around a telephone pole. Now, for the good of humanity everyone shall drive a hybrid and only use Javascript.



    They took away the <blink> tag but you can use setTimeout() and CSS to accomplish the same thing. Just as ugly but way more elegant.
  • Reply 116 of 222
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,126member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    The media criticism was warranted, and still is. It still isn't much more than a big iPod Touch. Lucky for Apple, there are millions of people for whom a big iPod Touch is just what they want.



    If the media was and is right as you claim, can you please explain why all iPad killers that the media predicted never materialized. Many companies would kill for those big Pad Touch customers but they haven't been to sell them much of anything. Or are you saying there 40 to 50 million dumb people with iPads and 3 to 5 million smart people with other tablets out there?
  • Reply 117 of 222
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,384member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Licensing is expensive, complicated and it would eat until their digital sales



    You made three statements, and only the last one is true
  • Reply 118 of 222
    This article hits the nail on the head and one thing I've noticed is how the YouTube tech pundits who are partner status fall over themselves to tout Android slabs even as they religiously cover Apple. Typically, they do spectard comparisons between the iPhone and the latest Android slab of the week even though measuring specs are the least relevant issue to the consumer. Part of it I understand considering Apple doesn't put out a new device every week and the tech pundits need a constant stream to products to review. On the other hand, if you're getting a check from Google as a YouTube partner, is there a conscious decision or subconscious influence to tout your paymaster's stuff.
  • Reply 119 of 222
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


    What absolute bullshit. If you want the full functionality of a compeer, then buy a fk'n computer. Like the brilliant MB Air. The iPad is a completely different device that serves to deliver digital content, along with apps, and do so at a specific price point. To load a full OS and do the work of a full computer, you would be at a totally different price point and user profile. The iPad is for people who want an easy to hold and carry, AND EASY TO USE, device for their iOS apps and digital content. It's also for people who don't want the hassles of a full featured computer yet can still access the internet and email, etc.



    Who gave you the right to define what people should use their computers for? For many people, a tablet like the iPad will more than adequately handle their needs. Heck, I was just talking with someone yesterday who has a 5 year old Windows laptop and just saw my daughter's Touchpad. She made a list of the things she wanted to do and asked if the Touchpad would do them. The answer to every one was 'yes'. The iPad is even more capable.



    Her needs were: email, checking her financial accounts online, managing digital photos, and doing Facebook and things like that. For her and millions of other people, they don't need a "fk'n computer". Not everyone has the same needs as you - that's a great lesson for you to learn.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sdbryan View Post


    You just don't have a clue. Of course the initial iPad can and does multitask. If you knew how to look under the hood you would see that dozens of tasks are running at the "same" time. What it didn't and still doesn't do is allow more than one third party app to run. There are hooks that allow audio to run in the background but that was true from the beginning as Apple's "iTunes player" ran in the background since the original launch. That hook was exposed to third parties as Apple and third party developers had more time to tend to more finishing touches. But iOS has been multitasking since day 1.



    That's an important point. The problem is that people have preconceived notions of something (like FreeRange above) and are incapable of understanding that the usefulness of a device is not all about the specs or meeting some arbitrary 'requirements'.



    If FreeRange were to focus on what people want to do with a computer rather than his own definition of what constitutes a "real" computer, he might understand that the iPad is fine for what many people do.



    Similarly, instead of focusing on some arbitrary definition of multitasking, people should be looking at what I want to do. For example:

    - play music while browsing the web? Sure, iPad always did that

    - check email while watching a movie? Sure, iPad always did that

    - play ZombieFarm at the same time as you're playing AngryBirds? No, iPad won't do that - but why would you want to?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post


    I'll be honest, I was initially pretty underwhelmed by the initial iPad launch. To be frank, it was one of Apple's/Jobs' most boring keynotes ever. I don't blame for Steve for not being a dynamo of energy at that point in time. But it lacked that usual Apple electricity.



    To be clear, I think the iPad is a pretty cool product now - I have an iPad 2. I think part of the misunderstanding of it was that the iPad is so plain physically. Beautiful, slim, capable. But it's especially featureless without software. After all, the iPad is essentially a portal to apps, games, websites, books, and other content. And that stuff did not quite appear to be there at launch.



    Sure it was. Everything you mentioned was available on the iPad at launch. Sure, it has gotten better over time, but the iPad did all those things from day 1.
  • Reply 120 of 222
    mobiusmobius Posts: 377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by The original Pauly G View Post


    I can't tell you how annoying it is to read articles from other tech sites that seem to be written on a cocktail napkin and then typed while drunk, filled with typos and lacking a clear, concise statement. So I applaud you for this well written article and although I knew most of what I was reading already, I still enjoyed reading your article, I hope you keep up the good work and continue to hold yourself to a higher standard so I can continue to read about the products I enjoy and the people behind them.



    The article is excellent I'd agree, but this one has typos too! I had to re-read one sentence 3 times as the written word rendered it meaningless (begin, instead of being).



    I seem to see these mistakes in almost all AI news items these days. One even had Steve Jobs's name spelt wrong, another had Macintosh wrong. Wow! It's incredibly disrespectful at a time when respect is just as important, if not more so, than the information you are trying to convey.



    Why don't you guys read your own articles and correct them before publication? I think it's called proof-reading. It only tales a few minutes.
Sign In or Register to comment.