If I had to compare Sharp and LG. I honestly have seen LG failures more often compared to Sharp Products.
Does any one remember the post here a while back where Apple had decided to switch from LG to another manufacturer for their LCD screens because of quality issues? Although LG is one of the largest producers of LCD screens, the screens are going into the cheap LCD TV models like Coby and RCA.
Sharp on the other hand is not like Korean based LG. Sharp makes great TV's and LCD screens. I have yet to work on a Sharp LCD TV. I have worked on LG based TV's and on the most part the LCD panels failed. Bad news for the customer. I had to tell them that their so called nice LG TV was not worth fixing because the LCD panel was bad.
Speaking of sharp, I replaced my 4 year old 32" lcd aquos for a new 40" aquos led backlight...wow it seriously puts my Parents 55" Samsung and my older tv to shame in image quality. Stunning! And makes playing modern warfare 3 quite enjoyable hA
The thing most people don't get about the Amazon Fire is that it is meant strictly for media consumption. Content is important. The iPad, however, can actually be used as a computer replacement and create content. For instance, my brother recorded a sweet sounding album using largely just the iPad. That is not possible on a Kindle Fire. Moreover, the Fire is missing cameras, microphone, aluminum chassis, compass, gyroscope, and a well seasoned OS.
Further, if you have tried an iPad you will be largely disappointed by the Fire. It's touchscreen is unresponsive, and the interface needs some work. With that said though, I think lots of people will buy the Fire based on price. Many will think they have something just as good as an iPad. Amazon has phenomenal marketing power. Sadly enough, if you want just a cheap media consumption device, Barnes and Noble's Nook performs significantly better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
I think Amazon Fire has the best shot. Amazon has two things going for it: (i) price and (ii) content. Consumers respond very well to price. $300 is so much cheaper it will absolutely have an impact on the ability to compete. It doesn't matter that the device is inferior, there is a huge percentage of the market that will find it to be good enough or that just simply can't afford the more expensive device.
The second item, content, is also critical. Content is probably the single biggest detrimental feature to previous "iPad killers." It doesn't do any good to have a media device if you don't have media to play. Tablets need music, books, and movies, not just Apps. Amazon has this media content and they will be able to satisfy customers who will actually use and buy that content.
As an Apple shareholder, I expect Apple to have an answer for the Amazon Fire. Apple better be busting out a 7 inch device that can compete on price. It doesn't have to be $200, but it needs to be within $100 or Apple is going to lose a large segment of the market. Over time, that low end of the market will eat away at the premium end and Apple will be left with nothing. They have to respond to this threat. Let's hope Apple can hit the sub $250 price point. If they do, I think they curtail the Amazon Fire threat.
It's not just the Kindle Fire that has that problem. No Android device is acceptable for music creation. There is a horrible audio latency on Android that makes it unusable. iOS devices use core audio, which rocks. I have no idea what Android uses, but without getting too technical about it, I will simply say that it sucks.
There is a horrible audio latency on Android that makes it unusable. iOS devices use core audio, which rocks. I have no idea what Android uses, but without getting too technical about it, I will simply say that it sucks.
Investing in old tech LCD is a wrong move. Sharp does not have Super AMOLED technology.
In one year from now Apple will be far behind from Samy, Nokia and Moto - all three already started to use Super AMOLED for their high end phones.
That's like saying investing in development of new internal combustion engines is a wrong move, because one year from now, Smart, Nissan, and Mitsubishi will have battery-powered cars, and anyone still using gas engines will be "far behind."
They've probably stolen plenty of things from Oracle, but when it comes to their audio latency problem, I think it's more of a matter of something that is missing from their OS.
I'm no programmer, and I'm not going to pretend to play one on the net, but here's what I understand. iOS uses Core Audio, which I guess isn't so hard to figure out by the name, but it processes audio at the very core of the OS. I guess that Android doesn't have anything similar to that. Or whatever they have is really, really bad in comparison.
If there's one thing that I know, it's music tech and music apps, and the latency for doing something like playing a keyboard or guitar on the iPad is really low, it's actually very playable and musical. That can not be done on Android, due to the horrible latency.
I was reading some music app developer forum recently, and they were talking about this Android audio latency problem in a much greater technical detail than my explanation is able to provide.
The thing most people don't get about the Amazon Fire is that it is meant strictly for media consumption. Content is important. The iPad, however, can actually be used as a computer replacement and create content. For instance, my brother recorded a sweet sounding album using largely just the iPad. That is not possible on a Kindle Fire. Moreover, the Fire is missing cameras, microphone, aluminum chassis, compass, gyroscope, and a well seasoned OS.
Further, if you have tried an iPad you will be largely disappointed by the Fire. It's touchscreen is unresponsive, and the interface needs some work. With that said though, I think lots of people will buy the Fire based on price. Many will think they have something just as good as an iPad. Amazon has phenomenal marketing power. Sadly enough, if you want just a cheap media consumption device, Barnes and Noble's Nook performs significantly better.
Apple has quite a challenge though. I think that it's going to be tough to have 4x as many pixels and still up the ante when it comes to performance (CPU and GPU), thinness and battery life.
My number 1 wish for iPad 2 was more RAM. iPad 1's very limited RAM was a ceiling I constantly hit and one I couldn't wait to be lifted. It was the main reason I sold my iPad 1 for an iPad 2.
The double resolution display on iPad 3 is going to be a seriously huge competitive advantage, and the iPad 3 will really be "the future" because of it, but I fear the addition of this super display will negate any real performance increases iPad 3 gets. Therefor, my next iPad will be iPad 4. That's when things start to get really get exciting. When both display AND performance clearly outshine iPad 2. iPad 3 will be no doubt interesting to iPad 1 owners.
Serioulsy though, imagine iPad 6 for a moment? Imagine that product. Imagine its OS. The future of the iPad is truly exciting. I can't wait to see what's to come.
My number 1 wish for iPad 2 was more RAM. iPad 1's very limited RAM was a ceiling I constantly hit and one I couldn't wait to be lifted. It was the main reason I sold my iPad 1 for an iPad 2.
The double resolution display on iPad 3 is going to be a seriously huge competitive advantage, and the iPad 3 will really be "the future" because of it, but I fear the addition of this super display will negate any real performance increases iPad 3 gets. Therefor, my next iPad will be iPad 4. That's when things start to get really get exciting. When both display AND performance clearly outshine iPad 2. iPad 3 will be no doubt interesting to iPad 1 owners.
Serioulsy though, imagine iPad 6 for a moment? Imagine that product. Imagine its OS. The future of the iPad is truly exciting. I can't wait to see what's to come.
It'll have to have to be 1GB minimum if they want to go to from XGA to QXGA. How much RAM does the current GPU use on average? Will 1GB be enough for it and the OS and apps?
I'm no programmer, and I'm not going to pretend to play one on the net, but here's what I understand. iOS uses Core Audio, which I guess isn't so hard to figure out by the name, but it processes audio at the very core of the OS. I guess that Android doesn't have anything similar to that. Or whatever they have is really, really bad in comparison.
It appears this still isn't in ICS, which is otherwise the version of Android that has finally caught up to the original iPhone in completeness.
I'm not sure if Xaudio 2 is for WP7 or not, but I bet they have some low-level audio API for WP7.
You're probably asking the wrong person that question. But the answer is of course no.
We already know that it doesn't matter if some Android device has better specs on paper, the overall usability is still worse. And they will never be able to match all of the quality apps that are available for the iPad. It's not just the hardware that matters of course, the biggest disadvantage that Android has is Android itself if you ask me.
How many "iPad killers" have already been released and have utterly and pathetically failed so far?
The next person to even mention the word "iPad killer" needs to be slapped in the face. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Nobody pays any attention to these lunatics anymore, when they've already been proven wrong so many times.
While everything you state is accurate, I think the biggest issues for the competitors is that Apple is moving so quickly, they can never even hope to keep up (if even half of the rumors about future devices are true). About the very best they can do with the physical device itself is to copy (usually poorly) the previous generation. But with Apple producing so many units, it's very hard for them to compete on price because Apple can produce them cheaper because of the quantities. The only winning approach is to try and produce something completely different. The e-book readers that use electronic ink take that approach and I think it's a smart one: they essentially do one thing really well and that one thing is better in at least some situations than the iPad as an eBook reader.
I was with a baby boom aged couple over Thanksgiving. The woman has been a Mac user for some time; the guy has always been a PC user, but never really understood how to accomplish things on his computer. I showed them how easy it was to shoot and send video on their iPad and it blew their minds.
I think Amazon Fire has the best shot. Amazon has two things going for it: (i) price and (ii) content. Consumers respond very well to price. $300 is so much cheaper it will absolutely have an impact on the ability to compete. It doesn't matter that the device is inferior, there is a huge percentage of the market that will find it to be good enough or that just simply can't afford the more expensive device.
The second item, content, is also critical. Content is probably the single biggest detrimental feature to previous "iPad killers." It doesn't do any good to have a media device if you don't have media to play. Tablets need music, books, and movies, not just Apps. Amazon has this media content and they will be able to satisfy customers who will actually use and buy that content.
As an Apple shareholder, I expect Apple to have an answer for the Amazon Fire. Apple better be busting out a 7 inch device that can compete on price. It doesn't have to be $200, but it needs to be within $100 or Apple is going to lose a large segment of the market. Over time, that low end of the market will eat away at the premium end and Apple will be left with nothing. They have to respond to this threat. Let's hope Apple can hit the sub $250 price point. If they do, I think they curtail the Amazon Fire threat.
While I agree that the Amazon and B&N devices are good devices as e-book readers, I disagree with your analysis. If anything, users of the Amazon Fire and similar devices will use them for a while, get used to the technology and then want something better, if only so they can unify their usage on one device. And those people will then upgrade to the incredible capabilities (especially in future models) of the iPad. Or they'll have two devices: a Nook or Kindle for ebook reading and an iPad as a PC replacement, since most people who don't use a PC for business related tasks don't actually need a PC.
Apple has never played at the low end of the market. And Amazon is probably selling below cost in order to gain market share, another game that Apple won't play. If Apple did play that game, the stock price might even fall if they're losing money on the operation. Saying that Apple needs to respond to the Fire is like saying that Apple should have responded to the low-priced PC clones. They didn't and they made the right move. Eventually the market discovered that Apple, even when more expensive, was the better buy, even in a recession.
Saying that Apple needs to respond to the Fire is like saying that Apple should have responded to the low-priced PC clones.
Interesting point. Do you see the iPad falling to less than 10% of the market? Apple was never as successful when their computer biz was their main line.
Can they prosper, while ceding 90% of the market, like they did with PCs?
Comments
If I had to compare Sharp and LG. I honestly have seen LG failures more often compared to Sharp Products.
Does any one remember the post here a while back where Apple had decided to switch from LG to another manufacturer for their LCD screens because of quality issues? Although LG is one of the largest producers of LCD screens, the screens are going into the cheap LCD TV models like Coby and RCA.
Sharp on the other hand is not like Korean based LG. Sharp makes great TV's and LCD screens. I have yet to work on a Sharp LCD TV. I have worked on LG based TV's and on the most part the LCD panels failed. Bad news for the customer. I had to tell them that their so called nice LG TV was not worth fixing because the LCD panel was bad.
Speaking of sharp, I replaced my 4 year old 32" lcd aquos for a new 40" aquos led backlight...wow it seriously puts my Parents 55" Samsung and my older tv to shame in image quality. Stunning! And makes playing modern warfare 3 quite enjoyable hA
Further, if you have tried an iPad you will be largely disappointed by the Fire. It's touchscreen is unresponsive, and the interface needs some work. With that said though, I think lots of people will buy the Fire based on price. Many will think they have something just as good as an iPad. Amazon has phenomenal marketing power. Sadly enough, if you want just a cheap media consumption device, Barnes and Noble's Nook performs significantly better.
I think Amazon Fire has the best shot. Amazon has two things going for it: (i) price and (ii) content. Consumers respond very well to price. $300 is so much cheaper it will absolutely have an impact on the ability to compete. It doesn't matter that the device is inferior, there is a huge percentage of the market that will find it to be good enough or that just simply can't afford the more expensive device.
The second item, content, is also critical. Content is probably the single biggest detrimental feature to previous "iPad killers." It doesn't do any good to have a media device if you don't have media to play. Tablets need music, books, and movies, not just Apps. Amazon has this media content and they will be able to satisfy customers who will actually use and buy that content.
As an Apple shareholder, I expect Apple to have an answer for the Amazon Fire. Apple better be busting out a 7 inch device that can compete on price. It doesn't have to be $200, but it needs to be within $100 or Apple is going to lose a large segment of the market. Over time, that low end of the market will eat away at the premium end and Apple will be left with nothing. They have to respond to this threat. Let's hope Apple can hit the sub $250 price point. If they do, I think they curtail the Amazon Fire threat.
Bye bye Samsung.
...Apple invests unspecified amount in Sharp...
Bye bye Samsung.
Investing in old tech LCD is a wrong move. Sharp does not have Super AMOLED technology.
In one year from now Apple will be far behind from Samy, Nokia and Moto - all three already started to use Super AMOLED for their high end phones.
Investing in old tech LCD is a wrong move. Sharp does not have Super AMOLED technology.
In one year from now Apple will be far behind from Samy, Nokia and Moto - all three already started to use Super AMOLED for their high end phones.
And? Your point is what? Follow them and embrace that?
Super amoled is over rated.
That is not possible on a Kindle Fire.
It's not just the Kindle Fire that has that problem. No Android device is acceptable for music creation. There is a horrible audio latency on Android that makes it unusable. iOS devices use core audio, which rocks. I have no idea what Android uses, but without getting too technical about it, I will simply say that it sucks.
There is a horrible audio latency on Android that makes it unusable. iOS devices use core audio, which rocks. I have no idea what Android uses, but without getting too technical about it, I will simply say that it sucks.
Perhaps something else they stole from Oracle?
Investing in old tech LCD is a wrong move. Sharp does not have Super AMOLED technology.
In one year from now Apple will be far behind from Samy, Nokia and Moto - all three already started to use Super AMOLED for their high end phones.
That's like saying investing in development of new internal combustion engines is a wrong move, because one year from now, Smart, Nissan, and Mitsubishi will have battery-powered cars, and anyone still using gas engines will be "far behind."
Perhaps something else they stole from Oracle?
They've probably stolen plenty of things from Oracle, but when it comes to their audio latency problem, I think it's more of a matter of something that is missing from their OS.
I'm no programmer, and I'm not going to pretend to play one on the net, but here's what I understand. iOS uses Core Audio, which I guess isn't so hard to figure out by the name, but it processes audio at the very core of the OS. I guess that Android doesn't have anything similar to that. Or whatever they have is really, really bad in comparison.
If there's one thing that I know, it's music tech and music apps, and the latency for doing something like playing a keyboard or guitar on the iPad is really low, it's actually very playable and musical. That can not be done on Android, due to the horrible latency.
I was reading some music app developer forum recently, and they were talking about this Android audio latency problem in a much greater technical detail than my explanation is able to provide.
High resolution will certainly be an important factor for locking up the Chinese market. Have you ever displayed Chinese characters on an iPhone?
+1 -very intelligent comment. Usability, again ...-
The thing most people don't get about the Amazon Fire is that it is meant strictly for media consumption. Content is important. The iPad, however, can actually be used as a computer replacement and create content. For instance, my brother recorded a sweet sounding album using largely just the iPad. That is not possible on a Kindle Fire. Moreover, the Fire is missing cameras, microphone, aluminum chassis, compass, gyroscope, and a well seasoned OS.
Further, if you have tried an iPad you will be largely disappointed by the Fire. It's touchscreen is unresponsive, and the interface needs some work. With that said though, I think lots of people will buy the Fire based on price. Many will think they have something just as good as an iPad. Amazon has phenomenal marketing power. Sadly enough, if you want just a cheap media consumption device, Barnes and Noble's Nook performs significantly better.
My thoughts exactly
Apple has quite a challenge though. I think that it's going to be tough to have 4x as many pixels and still up the ante when it comes to performance (CPU and GPU), thinness and battery life.
My number 1 wish for iPad 2 was more RAM. iPad 1's very limited RAM was a ceiling I constantly hit and one I couldn't wait to be lifted. It was the main reason I sold my iPad 1 for an iPad 2.
The double resolution display on iPad 3 is going to be a seriously huge competitive advantage, and the iPad 3 will really be "the future" because of it, but I fear the addition of this super display will negate any real performance increases iPad 3 gets. Therefor, my next iPad will be iPad 4. That's when things start to get really get exciting. When both display AND performance clearly outshine iPad 2. iPad 3 will be no doubt interesting to iPad 1 owners.
Serioulsy though, imagine iPad 6 for a moment? Imagine that product. Imagine its OS. The future of the iPad is truly exciting. I can't wait to see what's to come.
My number 1 wish for iPad 2 was more RAM. iPad 1's very limited RAM was a ceiling I constantly hit and one I couldn't wait to be lifted. It was the main reason I sold my iPad 1 for an iPad 2.
The double resolution display on iPad 3 is going to be a seriously huge competitive advantage, and the iPad 3 will really be "the future" because of it, but I fear the addition of this super display will negate any real performance increases iPad 3 gets. Therefor, my next iPad will be iPad 4. That's when things start to get really get exciting. When both display AND performance clearly outshine iPad 2. iPad 3 will be no doubt interesting to iPad 1 owners.
Serioulsy though, imagine iPad 6 for a moment? Imagine that product. Imagine its OS. The future of the iPad is truly exciting. I can't wait to see what's to come.
It'll have to have to be 1GB minimum if they want to go to from XGA to QXGA. How much RAM does the current GPU use on average? Will 1GB be enough for it and the OS and apps?
I'm no programmer, and I'm not going to pretend to play one on the net, but here's what I understand. iOS uses Core Audio, which I guess isn't so hard to figure out by the name, but it processes audio at the very core of the OS. I guess that Android doesn't have anything similar to that. Or whatever they have is really, really bad in comparison.
It appears this still isn't in ICS, which is otherwise the version of Android that has finally caught up to the original iPhone in completeness.
I'm not sure if Xaudio 2 is for WP7 or not, but I bet they have some low-level audio API for WP7.
As much as I'd appreciate a better resolution screen, I'd take double battery life over double resolution any day.
An extra LED sounds like trouble on the battery front.
I wonder if it's possible to have a book reader mode, with extended battery performance.
You're probably asking the wrong person that question. But the answer is of course no.
We already know that it doesn't matter if some Android device has better specs on paper, the overall usability is still worse. And they will never be able to match all of the quality apps that are available for the iPad. It's not just the hardware that matters of course, the biggest disadvantage that Android has is Android itself if you ask me.
How many "iPad killers" have already been released and have utterly and pathetically failed so far?
The next person to even mention the word "iPad killer" needs to be slapped in the face. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Nobody pays any attention to these lunatics anymore, when they've already been proven wrong so many times.
While everything you state is accurate, I think the biggest issues for the competitors is that Apple is moving so quickly, they can never even hope to keep up (if even half of the rumors about future devices are true). About the very best they can do with the physical device itself is to copy (usually poorly) the previous generation. But with Apple producing so many units, it's very hard for them to compete on price because Apple can produce them cheaper because of the quantities. The only winning approach is to try and produce something completely different. The e-book readers that use electronic ink take that approach and I think it's a smart one: they essentially do one thing really well and that one thing is better in at least some situations than the iPad as an eBook reader.
I was with a baby boom aged couple over Thanksgiving. The woman has been a Mac user for some time; the guy has always been a PC user, but never really understood how to accomplish things on his computer. I showed them how easy it was to shoot and send video on their iPad and it blew their minds.
Investing in old tech LCD is a wrong move. Sharp does not have Super AMOLED technology.
In one year from now Apple will be far behind from Samy, Nokia and Moto - all three already started to use Super AMOLED for their high end phones.
And iPhone's Retina Display is still considered by the majority of reviewers as the best all-round display.
Nice Try.
I think Amazon Fire has the best shot. Amazon has two things going for it: (i) price and (ii) content. Consumers respond very well to price. $300 is so much cheaper it will absolutely have an impact on the ability to compete. It doesn't matter that the device is inferior, there is a huge percentage of the market that will find it to be good enough or that just simply can't afford the more expensive device.
The second item, content, is also critical. Content is probably the single biggest detrimental feature to previous "iPad killers." It doesn't do any good to have a media device if you don't have media to play. Tablets need music, books, and movies, not just Apps. Amazon has this media content and they will be able to satisfy customers who will actually use and buy that content.
As an Apple shareholder, I expect Apple to have an answer for the Amazon Fire. Apple better be busting out a 7 inch device that can compete on price. It doesn't have to be $200, but it needs to be within $100 or Apple is going to lose a large segment of the market. Over time, that low end of the market will eat away at the premium end and Apple will be left with nothing. They have to respond to this threat. Let's hope Apple can hit the sub $250 price point. If they do, I think they curtail the Amazon Fire threat.
While I agree that the Amazon and B&N devices are good devices as e-book readers, I disagree with your analysis. If anything, users of the Amazon Fire and similar devices will use them for a while, get used to the technology and then want something better, if only so they can unify their usage on one device. And those people will then upgrade to the incredible capabilities (especially in future models) of the iPad. Or they'll have two devices: a Nook or Kindle for ebook reading and an iPad as a PC replacement, since most people who don't use a PC for business related tasks don't actually need a PC.
Apple has never played at the low end of the market. And Amazon is probably selling below cost in order to gain market share, another game that Apple won't play. If Apple did play that game, the stock price might even fall if they're losing money on the operation. Saying that Apple needs to respond to the Fire is like saying that Apple should have responded to the low-priced PC clones. They didn't and they made the right move. Eventually the market discovered that Apple, even when more expensive, was the better buy, even in a recession.
Saying that Apple needs to respond to the Fire is like saying that Apple should have responded to the low-priced PC clones.
Interesting point. Do you see the iPad falling to less than 10% of the market? Apple was never as successful when their computer biz was their main line.
Can they prosper, while ceding 90% of the market, like they did with PCs?