Yes, that's why the iPad is the best selling computing device on the planet(1) and everybody including Microsoft copied it(2). That is, they copied the iPad after it was released, not the iPod Touch, because clearly nobody would ever want a bigger iPod Touch.
I'd love to know what innovations you think Microsoft is bringing to the game(3) ... It's basically their tablet PC bill gates has been pushing since the 90s except its redesigned to look like an iPad.(4) It has an integrated keyboard, just like a netbook or a laptop.(5) And it has all the same ports as the netbooks and laptops that preceded it. Oh yes, and then there's that kickstand ... (5) Turns the Surface into a picture frame ... Yeah that's fresh and original. Somebody might want to apply that to picture frams so instead of just hanging on the wall, they can sit on desks and tables. Oh but wait, if you use the built-in kick stand you won't be able to use a custom case from the hundreds of third party manufacturers that have been making kick-stand type cases since the iPad was launched. So innovative ...
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done.
Unfortunately, all it means is that 58% of the windows users are happy with whatever OS they are currently using. However, it does seem that a segment of the market is switching to Apple products when they buy their next computer. Some buy iMacs, most buy laptops or iDevices. Some of Apple's laptops are bought to run primarily Windows. Where Apple is scoring the most converts is with the iPhones and iPads.
While desktop Mac sales are growing each year (and Windows PC sales are dropping), currently Apple sells more "hobby" iTVs than they do iMacs.
I have a theory about that: it's easier to get into a iTV or iOS device, because they don't 'replace' the PC, so it's not a disruptive as switching from PC to Mac (and replacing your computer). The iPhone or iPad can be used along side the PC, and even sync'd via iTunes for Windows. The model I'm using for this is the iPod: iPod sales took off when Apple released a Windows compatible version. In fact, I was still a Windows user when I got my first iPod, eight years ago. I use my sister and brother-in-law as a model for what's happening with the iOS. They get an iPad, because it's new and cool, fun and useful. It might not run Windows PC programs, but it's useful enough to replace what they used to use a PC for 80-90% of the time, and BONUS: it has an all-day battery, iOS simplicity, and its instant-on, take-anywhere nature make it unlike any Windows PC they've ever owned. Now Microsoft is worried. iOS devices snuck up on Windows PC owners, and it's not going to turn them into Mac users; it's going to turn them into iOS users. Hence iTV sales outnumbering iMac sales. iPads, iPhones (and similar non-PC computing devices) are a long-term competitive threat to the Windows PC hegemony.
(1)No, you're right, the iPad wasn't innovative at all, (2) it just created the tablet industry, which is why every single tablet now in existence is either completely based on it, or heavily inspired by it. (3) Oh, and BTW the iPad was released under SJ, back when you "loved" Apple. (4) I dont know what your definition of innovation is, but if you cant see how the iPad was innovative in so, so many ways, and how there was nothing like it when it was released, then there's no hope for you or any shred of objectivity you might have.
1 - Exactly.
2 - Technically the iPad wasn't the first tablet made and even though it did help *boost* (I wouldn't say it created) the tablet industry Microsoft did try to take a swing at the tablet market but it failed miserably and Apple made a product that is essentially the same thing but bigger with no new innovation, called the iPad. You see, Microsoft made the Tablet PC and it failed because they put just the Desktop OS on a tablet (not a good thing), then Apple made the iPad and the world went crazy, and then Microsoft tried again and made something a lot better and more innovative than the Tablet PC and the iPad, it's called the Surface. But now people claim that Microsoft copied Apple (are you kidding me). This photo pretty much describes what I said. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
3 - I don't care who it was released under. I have great respect for Steve and I miss him because he was the visionary and leader of Apple and now they've got to work hard to keep that energy and leadership in order to be successful. Although I don't agree that making the same thing bigger was a great idea. The iPad is more of a toy than a real tablet to me.
4 - I actually have a great view and definition on innovation and I'd like for you to point out how you think the iPad is innovative..?
Quote:
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done.
I'm going out on a limb here but... Have you ever even used an iPad?
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done.
The Surface Pro doesn't compete with the iPad and vice versa. They're two completely different devices. If anything, the Surface Pro competes with the MB Air & will be priced accordingly - My guess $899 to $1099. I could be wrong but we'll see. The iPad competes with the Surface RT.
As far as the Surface Pro being a great tablet is debatable even though it has a great tablet UI. There are many anecdotal reports of people finding the iPad heavy to hold for long periods of time so I don't see that being any different for the Surface seeing that it weighs the same if not more. The way I view the Surface, and this is just my view, is as a thin netbook with a touchscreen (too heavy to hold as a tablet for long periods and not as powerful as a traditional laptop or notebook). And I don't say that as a criticism of the device as I'm sure there are many people who want a device like that.
As far the iPad's innovation. First, it's the first tablet to garner major mainstream acceptance. It's obviously not the first tablet ever created but it is the first to make tablets popular. Second, it's the first device to bring computing to the masses that is simple and easy to understand. I don't buy into the premise that the iPad is just a large iPod Touch. The UI elements on the iPad are more sophisticated for one plus the opportunities for content-creation type apps are far greater on the iPad. One only has to do a google search to learn of the many content-creation examples people are using the iPad for - video, photography, music, illustration, creating blog posts, etc. Granted, there many not be many examples of Office productivity but there's more to Word & Excel when it comes to content creation.
Don't get me a wrong, I think the Surface is a cool device. What I don't agree with is MS putting two UI layers on it. I would've preferred they kept the Surface a pure Metro UI and let tradtional desktops / laptops boot into the desktop environment. Let the tablet be the tablet and let the traditional PC be the traditional PC. By making the Surface legacy-free it would've allowed MS to begin making a complete break from the past.
As far as the kickstand, I agree, that is a great feature.
I'm going out on a limb here but... Have you ever even used an iPad?
Yes, I've used my mother's iPad 1 and my friend's iPad 3 both several times. I'm just not an iPad person. I've tried to like it but it's just not for me.
A better design... You're right, because the iPad is such a great design.
I'm not an Apple hater just to clear the air, I own a few Apple products and I love Apple (especially when Steve was alive) but the iPad (from what I've seen) doesn't bring any innovation what so ever - unless you count making the same thing bigger (in this case, the iPod Touch).
I also love Microsoft and I think the Surface does bring more innovation than the iPad. I'm waiting for the Surface Pro in January and I can't wait to get it.
Thanks for the memories. I had forgotten what BS arguments from 2010 were like until I read your post. Quick - grab your tri-corner hat! I hear there's a protest against that Kenyan socialist in the White House. I know we'll beat him in 2012!
Except one them needs a goddamn kickstand to prop it up at a fixed angle, while the other does not and adjusts to many angles. Oh, sorry, apparently that's some kind of "innovation."
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done.
You've proven yourself to be a mindless fucking troll, so please just shutup. You're still using the 'enlarged iPod touch' bullshit line? Really? Then you link to a photo creating by an Apple-hating fanatics (you, probably) as your 'proof' of Apple's lack of innovation thats supposed to prove what, exactly? A fucking imaginary tablet from Star Trek, then a WinXP machine, running a desktop OS meant for a mouse and keyboard, with a touchscreen slapped on top, shit battery life, shit touchscreen responsiveness, just to mock the iPad and ignore the reality that it actually DID change everything, regardless of the alternate reality you want to live in? No, the world didn't 'piss itself like n excited dog' when the iPad was unveiled- it was actually mocked more than it was praised, by short-sighted people such as yourself. Unlike you, most have now learn to respect it, considering the tablet market pretty much IS the iPad now. The fact that you'd trot out a photo like that to prove some kind of point is proof that you're lacking any shred of objectivity, rationality, and are in fact a moron. Star Trek, really? I guess it someone comes up with teleportation it wont be that impressive either, since Star Trek did it 1st.
Well can you explain to me how the iPad is innovative? I'll be waiting for your response. It wouldn't matter if you replied or not because there's virtually nothing you could bring up that makes the iPad oh so innovative.
For the sake of argument... let's say the iPad isn't innovative...
So what can we say about all the other companies who also ventured down the tablet road?
If the iPad is "just a big iPod Touch"... what are all those other guys' tablets?
Just like your picture earlier... Picard and Gates had tablets a decade before the iPad. So yeah... I can kinda see why the iPad might be considered derivative.
But doesn't that apply to every tablet that came after the iPad too?
Did anyone ever say "the Playbook is just a big Blackberry Storm" or "the Touchpad is just a big Palm Pre" ??
And let's not forget that those came after Star Trek, the first MS Tablet PC... and the iPad...
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
Why would you send $899-1099 to get a tablet with a keyboard, when you can get a ultrabook that costs a lot less and gives you a bigger screen. Btw if you think that Surface Pro will compete with iPad, you do not know the PC market.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
You are right MS did try the tablet market and MS are still trying, since none of their attempts have been successful and jury still out on the surface RT, again Surface Pro will be competing with ultrabooks.
Note: You allowed your opinion, but your opinion is not relevant when consumer has spoken and success of iPad is very clear to everyone
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
It failed because MS tried to do too much and not take baby steps, to introduce the product to market, plus it was too heavy and people thought it was laptop without steroids.
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
Keyboard and trackpad/mouse will never be successful with tablets and iPad has proven that their not required for average consumer, who wants to e-mail, surf internet, play games and have aps for their lifestyle. This is why MS fail, since they try focus business practices on the consumer. Why do we need a keyboard or mouse. If you think iPad is not innovative talk to business traveler like me, who has less weight to carry, when travelling.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done
You think that kickstand is innovative..lol as stated by others, iPad has many kickstand accessories and guess what, you can CHOOSE to have it or not. People do like choice.
P.S. I wrote in bold, so it was clear from your comments.
With all the top people "leaving" MS, it will be impossible for the board of directors to ask for Ballmer's resignation (i.e., fire him). There's nobody around to replace him. So this is just Ballmer protecting his job and juicy salary.
(1) The Surface Pro doesn't compete with the iPad and vice versa. (2) They're two completely different devices. (3) If anything, the Surface Pro competes with the MB Air & will be priced accordingly - My guess $899 to $1099. I could be wrong but we'll see. (4) The iPad competes with the Surface RT.
As far as the Surface Pro being a great tablet is debatable even though it has a great tablet UI. There are many anecdotal reports of people finding the iPad heavy to hold for long periods of time so I don't see that being any different for the Surface seeing that it weighs the same if not more. (5) The way I view the Surface, and this is just my view, is as a thin netbook with a touchscreen (too heavy to hold as a tablet for long periods and not as powerful as a traditional laptop or notebook). And I don't say that as a criticism of the device as I'm sure there are many people who want a device like that.
As far the iPad's innovation. (6) First, it's the first tablet to garner major mainstream acceptance. It's obviously not the first tablet ever created but it is the first to make tablets popular. Second, it's the first device to bring computing to the masses that is simple and easy to understand. (7) I don't buy into the premise that the iPad is just a large iPod Touch. (8) The UI elements on the iPad are more sophisticated for one plus the opportunities for content-creation type apps are far greater on the iPad. One only has to do a google search to learn of the many content-creation examples people are using the iPad for - video, photography, music, illustration, creating blog posts, etc. Granted, there many not be many examples of Office productivity but there's more to Word & Excel when it comes to content creation.
Don't get me a wrong, I think the Surface is a cool device. (9) What I don't agree with is MS putting two UI layers on it. I would've preferred they kept the Surface a pure Metro UI and let tradtional desktops / laptops boot into the desktop environment. (10) Let the tablet be the tablet and let the traditional PC be the traditional PC. By making the Surface legacy-free it would've allowed MS to begin making a complete break from the past.
As far as the kickstand, I agree, that is a great feature.
1 - Kind of disagree on that.
2 - Not really. They're both tablets and they both have mobile UI's with their own mobile apps. The only difference is that the Surface offers users the ability to use the Desktop.
3 - Maybe, but the Air is a laptop and this is more of a tablet than a laptop.
4 - I'm not an RT fan because I need something that let's me wrong my favorite Windows 7 and 8 apps that normally would run fine on my laptop running Windows 8 Pro.
5 - But a Netbook is just a stripped-down laptop where as the Surface could be both that or a regular tablet.
6 - I will give it that, it was the first to make mainstream success but at the time of it's launch there was nothing else that could compete against it but 3 years later now there's plenty of other options from the Android side (I'd never use anything with Android though) and then there's the Surface that offers 2 UX's which is great because I don't have to worry about whether or not a file or program will be compatible on the tablet or better yet; I wouldn't have to run back & forth between my computer and tablet to do certain tasks because now I can get things done all in the same machine.
7 - Well I think it's just a bigger iPod Touch. I honestly can't see what makes the iPad so special. The only thing I could see is that for those who like to have things on a bigger screen - sure. But as far as innovation is concerned I can find anything that makes the iPad innovative.
8 - Okay.. I guess they'd be better because now the screen size is bigger so they have to change some of the elements to match the size of the screen. And as for content-creation that's where I think the Surface will be more successful because when the Pro is release it'll let other Windows programs run on the Surface giving the opportunity for more content-creation on the Desktop side and the tablet (metro) side.
9 - Well for me I'm glad they put two UX's on there. I find that it gives the tablet more capabilities than just apps that are coded for a 'mobile platform'. Although I do see your point that they should of let the Surface be a pure Metro UX. I do hope that in the near-future Microsoft does kill-off the Desktop side but for now while Windows 8 is booming I'm not so ready to give it up just yet.
10 - I do agree on that and like I said in #9 I hope that sometime in the future Microsoft does kill-off the Desktop UX on the Surface. I also agree about what you said stating that by Microsoft letting go of the Desktop they'd be allowing themselves to begin making a "complete break from the past".
I'm not an Apple hater just to clear the air, I own a few Apple products and I love Apple </snip>
That's always a good start.
Whenever this statement appears, forum readers are immediately separated into two camps:
Those who don't believe you.
Those who don't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
Quote:
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
You are absolutely correct. Apple does not innovate. The smartphone wasn't a new idea, and neither was the tablet. No, what Apple does better than anyone else is observe. They watch their competitors and learn from their mistakes. They watched Microsoft's failed tablet strategy for years then realised that perhaps people didn't want a UI shoehorned from the desktop into a tablet; perhaps they didn't want a large clunky machine with loads of ports and slots they'd never use. Perhaps they wanted a tablet that was designed to be a tablet, and not a shrunken PC.
Turns out they were right.
And how did Microsoft respond? They took a tablet OS and tried to blow it out into a desktop operating sytem; the same mistake from a different angle, which is why most of the reviews seem to wonder exactly who the OS is aimed at.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
Yes, they tried it several times over the years. The real 'innovation' here is that Apple actually created a tablet that people wanted to buy. Ballmer was in the news yesterday, and he described the Surface sales as 'modest', so the jury is still out on whether or not they've actually succeeded this time round. The fact that Sinofsky is out on his ear suggests not.
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
No, it doesn't. The problem is that the UIs are the same for two completely different user paradigms. You can slip back and into regular Windows if you want to, but the experience is an inconsistent mess (I have used it, yes).
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
Right, so it's something like this then:
But on the subject of the keybooard cover, here's something you should take a look at:
It's a patent Apple filed in August 2011 for a flexible display cover with a built-in keyboard. That's a shade under a year before MS announced the Surface and it's keyboard cover.
Now from the Samsung court case we know that Microsoft had to license certain technologies from Apple to build the Surface. I suspect that the keyboard could be part of that deal.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done.
The kickstand is fixed at one position, which means that you have to be of the Microsoft-approved height to get the most out of it.
Why would you send $899-1099 to get a tablet with a keyboard, when you can get a ultrabook that costs a lot less and gives you a bigger screen. Btw if you think that Surface Pro will compete with iPad, you do not know the PC market.
If I wanted something a bigger screen I'd get an ultrabook but the Surface is a tablet and it offers touchscreen capabilities and it also offers the Touch Cover but again, it's optional. I don't need to get the keyboard if I didn't want to. And just because I know the Surface will compete with the iPad doesn't mean that I don't know the PC market.
You are right MS did try the tablet market and MS are still trying, since none of their attempts have been successful and jury still out on the surface RT, again Surface Pro will be competing with ultrabooks.
Note: You allowed your opinion, but your opinion is not relevant when consumer has spoken and success of iPad is very clear to everyone
I'm not sure what Microsoft was thinking about releasing the RT but what I do know is that if the Pro is anything like I've heard it's going to be then it'll be definitely competing with the iPad, and maybe with Ultrabooks too depending on which one we're talking about. The iPad was successful because it was the first tablet in years that was easy to use, has a great ecosystem and runs a great mobile OS but now there's a lot of competition around but the point is that the Surface Pro offers 2 UX's plus the capability to run legacy Windows apps whereas the iPad only offers 1 UX.
Keyboard and trackpad/mouse will never be successful with tablets and iPad has proven that their not required for average consumer, who wants to e-mail, surf internet, play games and have aps for their lifestyle. This is why MS fail, since they try focus business practices on the consumer. Why do we need a keyboard or mouse. If you think iPad is not innovative talk to business traveler like me, who has less weight to carry, when travelling.
How can you be so sure that keyboards and trackpads will never be successful? It's been proven on the iPad, but you're forgetting that you've only mentioned the iPad. The iPad is not the only tablet around today. "Why do we need a keyboard or mouse trackpad" Have you seen how difficult it is to use a Desktop OS on a touch screen. Without a keyboard or trackpad it'd be a lot harder to navigate a Desktop environment on a touchscreen. But with the Surface they offer that but at least they don't push it on the users. It's optional.
You think that kickstand is innovative..lol as stated by others, iPad has many kickstand accessories and guess what, you can CHOOSE to have it or not. People do like choice.
I think it's innovative when they have it built-in because then people don't have to rely on other accessories to do the job. Believe it or not people like it when a product comes built-in with something that normally would require an accessory to make the product work the way they want it to. And it's not like the Kickstand is always going to be open. If you don't want it open, by all means keep it closed...
"People do like choice" One could choose to get the Surface with or without the Touch Cover. One could choose to get it in 32GB or 64GB. One could choose one of several colors for their Touch Cover (should they choose to get one). One could choose to keep the Kickstand open or closed. People do like choice, and clearly Microsoft is giving users choices.
All my answers are the one's that aren't in bold while yours remain in bold.
Great picture Rogifan! That sums things up pretty nicely.
The Surface is dumb, awkward and makes no sense.
Who wants some kind of frankenstein type hybrid device that doesn't even know if it's a laptop or a tablet? And the real funny part is that it's worse at both things!
And I still think that the colors of those keyboards are puke worthy. Are they marketing it to 12 year old girls? Judging by that awful Glee-like TV ad, I think that they just might be. Who in their right mind watches Glee by the way?
(1) For the sake of argument... let's say the iPad isn't innovative...
(2) So what can we say about all the other companies who also ventured down the tablet road?
If the iPad is "just a big iPod Touch"... what are all those other guys' tablets?
Just like your picture earlier... Picard and Gates had tablets a decade before the iPad. So yeah... I can kinda see why the iPad might be considered derivative.
(3) Did anyone ever say "the Playbook is just a big Blackberry Storm" or "the Touchpad is just a big Palm Pre" ??
And let's not forget that those came after Star Trek, the first MS Tablet PC... and the iPad...
1 - Well it isn't..
2 - If you make a product that is the same thing but smaller, that's not innovation. There's nothing new about making the same thing smaller and if that means that most of the tablets around today are just bigger versions of another product then yes the tablet is not innovative. If there are features in the OS itself that make the tablet worth using then that's an exception to be made. What I'm trying to say is that if there's something in the iPad that the iPod Touch doesn't do (I mean something really good here) then the iPad would have some worth to it but since it's pretty much a bigger iPod Touch then I can't see anything that makes the iPad innovative.
3 - I don't recall much of that but remember that the iPad is a really successful tablet so the more successful it is the more popularity and criticism it's going to get, but now that you mention that I guess you could say that the Playbook is a bigger version but I haven't used a BlackBerry Storm or Palm Pre so I can't confirm that but if it is just the same thing but in a bigger product then I can't see where the innovation is.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Yes, that's why the iPad is the best selling computing device on the planet(1) and everybody including Microsoft copied it(2). That is, they copied the iPad after it was released, not the iPod Touch, because clearly nobody would ever want a bigger iPod Touch.
I'd love to know what innovations you think Microsoft is bringing to the game(3) ... It's basically their tablet PC bill gates has been pushing since the 90s except its redesigned to look like an iPad.(4) It has an integrated keyboard, just like a netbook or a laptop.(5) And it has all the same ports as the netbooks and laptops that preceded it. Oh yes, and then there's that kickstand ... (5) Turns the Surface into a picture frame ... Yeah that's fresh and original. Somebody might want to apply that to picture frams so instead of just hanging on the wall, they can sit on desks and tables. Oh but wait, if you use the built-in kick stand you won't be able to use a custom case from the hundreds of third party manufacturers that have been making kick-stand type cases since the iPad was launched. So innovative ...
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
Unfortunately, all it means is that 58% of the windows users are happy with whatever OS they are currently using. However, it does seem that a segment of the market is switching to Apple products when they buy their next computer. Some buy iMacs, most buy laptops or iDevices. Some of Apple's laptops are bought to run primarily Windows. Where Apple is scoring the most converts is with the iPhones and iPads.
While desktop Mac sales are growing each year (and Windows PC sales are dropping), currently Apple sells more "hobby" iTVs than they do iMacs.
I have a theory about that: it's easier to get into a iTV or iOS device, because they don't 'replace' the PC, so it's not a disruptive as switching from PC to Mac (and replacing your computer). The iPhone or iPad can be used along side the PC, and even sync'd via iTunes for Windows. The model I'm using for this is the iPod: iPod sales took off when Apple released a Windows compatible version. In fact, I was still a Windows user when I got my first iPod, eight years ago. I use my sister and brother-in-law as a model for what's happening with the iOS. They get an iPad, because it's new and cool, fun and useful. It might not run Windows PC programs, but it's useful enough to replace what they used to use a PC for 80-90% of the time, and BONUS: it has an all-day battery, iOS simplicity, and its instant-on, take-anywhere nature make it unlike any Windows PC they've ever owned. Now Microsoft is worried. iOS devices snuck up on Windows PC owners, and it's not going to turn them into Mac users; it's going to turn them into iOS users. Hence iTV sales outnumbering iMac sales. iPads, iPhones (and similar non-PC computing devices) are a long-term competitive threat to the Windows PC hegemony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
(1)No, you're right, the iPad wasn't innovative at all, (2) it just created the tablet industry, which is why every single tablet now in existence is either completely based on it, or heavily inspired by it. (3) Oh, and BTW the iPad was released under SJ, back when you "loved" Apple. (4) I dont know what your definition of innovation is, but if you cant see how the iPad was innovative in so, so many ways, and how there was nothing like it when it was released, then there's no hope for you or any shred of objectivity you might have.
1 - Exactly.
2 - Technically the iPad wasn't the first tablet made and even though it did help *boost* (I wouldn't say it created) the tablet industry Microsoft did try to take a swing at the tablet market but it failed miserably and Apple made a product that is essentially the same thing but bigger with no new innovation, called the iPad. You see, Microsoft made the Tablet PC and it failed because they put just the Desktop OS on a tablet (not a good thing), then Apple made the iPad and the world went crazy, and then Microsoft tried again and made something a lot better and more innovative than the Tablet PC and the iPad, it's called the Surface. But now people claim that Microsoft copied Apple (are you kidding me). This photo pretty much describes what I said. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
3 - I don't care who it was released under. I have great respect for Steve and I miss him because he was the visionary and leader of Apple and now they've got to work hard to keep that energy and leadership in order to be successful. Although I don't agree that making the same thing bigger was a great idea. The iPad is more of a toy than a real tablet to me.
4 - I actually have a great view and definition on innovation and I'd like for you to point out how you think the iPad is innovative..?
I'm going out on a limb here but... Have you ever even used an iPad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
Quote:
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done.
The Surface Pro doesn't compete with the iPad and vice versa. They're two completely different devices. If anything, the Surface Pro competes with the MB Air & will be priced accordingly - My guess $899 to $1099. I could be wrong but we'll see. The iPad competes with the Surface RT.
As far as the Surface Pro being a great tablet is debatable even though it has a great tablet UI. There are many anecdotal reports of people finding the iPad heavy to hold for long periods of time so I don't see that being any different for the Surface seeing that it weighs the same if not more. The way I view the Surface, and this is just my view, is as a thin netbook with a touchscreen (too heavy to hold as a tablet for long periods and not as powerful as a traditional laptop or notebook). And I don't say that as a criticism of the device as I'm sure there are many people who want a device like that.
As far the iPad's innovation. First, it's the first tablet to garner major mainstream acceptance. It's obviously not the first tablet ever created but it is the first to make tablets popular. Second, it's the first device to bring computing to the masses that is simple and easy to understand. I don't buy into the premise that the iPad is just a large iPod Touch. The UI elements on the iPad are more sophisticated for one plus the opportunities for content-creation type apps are far greater on the iPad. One only has to do a google search to learn of the many content-creation examples people are using the iPad for - video, photography, music, illustration, creating blog posts, etc. Granted, there many not be many examples of Office productivity but there's more to Word & Excel when it comes to content creation.
Don't get me a wrong, I think the Surface is a cool device. What I don't agree with is MS putting two UI layers on it. I would've preferred they kept the Surface a pure Metro UI and let tradtional desktops / laptops boot into the desktop environment. Let the tablet be the tablet and let the traditional PC be the traditional PC. By making the Surface legacy-free it would've allowed MS to begin making a complete break from the past.
As far as the kickstand, I agree, that is a great feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
I actually have a great view and definition on innovation...
Your modesty is pretty kick-ass too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juil
I'm going out on a limb here but... Have you ever even used an iPad?
Yes, I've used my mother's iPad 1 and my friend's iPad 3 both several times. I'm just not an iPad person. I've tried to like it but it's just not for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
Quote:
A better design... You're right, because the iPad is such a great design.
I'm not an Apple hater just to clear the air, I own a few Apple products and I love Apple (especially when Steve was alive) but the iPad (from what I've seen) doesn't bring any innovation what so ever - unless you count making the same thing bigger (in this case, the iPod Touch).
I also love Microsoft and I think the Surface does bring more innovation than the iPad. I'm waiting for the Surface Pro in January and I can't wait to get it.
Thanks for the memories. I had forgotten what BS arguments from 2010 were like until I read your post. Quick - grab your tri-corner hat! I hear there's a protest against that Kenyan socialist in the White House. I know we'll beat him in 2012!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Except one them needs a goddamn kickstand to prop it up at a fixed angle, while the other does not and adjusts to many angles. Oh, sorry, apparently that's some kind of "innovation."
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN
An octopus that grabs you with eight arms full of razor-sharp, pointy teeth...
It was truly a scary and confusing monster... Roger Corman's finest attempt at not making sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
Quote:
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done.
You've proven yourself to be a mindless fucking troll, so please just shutup. You're still using the 'enlarged iPod touch' bullshit line? Really? Then you link to a photo creating by an Apple-hating fanatics (you, probably) as your 'proof' of Apple's lack of innovation thats supposed to prove what, exactly? A fucking imaginary tablet from Star Trek, then a WinXP machine, running a desktop OS meant for a mouse and keyboard, with a touchscreen slapped on top, shit battery life, shit touchscreen responsiveness, just to mock the iPad and ignore the reality that it actually DID change everything, regardless of the alternate reality you want to live in? No, the world didn't 'piss itself like n excited dog' when the iPad was unveiled- it was actually mocked more than it was praised, by short-sighted people such as yourself. Unlike you, most have now learn to respect it, considering the tablet market pretty much IS the iPad now. The fact that you'd trot out a photo like that to prove some kind of point is proof that you're lacking any shred of objectivity, rationality, and are in fact a moron. Star Trek, really? I guess it someone comes up with teleportation it wont be that impressive either, since Star Trek did it 1st.
For the sake of argument... let's say the iPad isn't innovative...
So what can we say about all the other companies who also ventured down the tablet road?
If the iPad is "just a big iPod Touch"... what are all those other guys' tablets?
Just like your picture earlier... Picard and Gates had tablets a decade before the iPad. So yeah... I can kinda see why the iPad might be considered derivative.
But doesn't that apply to every tablet that came after the iPad too?
Did anyone ever say "the Playbook is just a big Blackberry Storm" or "the Touchpad is just a big Palm Pre" ??
And let's not forget that those came after Star Trek, the first MS Tablet PC... and the iPad...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
Quote:
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
Why would you send $899-1099 to get a tablet with a keyboard, when you can get a ultrabook that costs a lot less and gives you a bigger screen. Btw if you think that Surface Pro will compete with iPad, you do not know the PC market.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
You are right MS did try the tablet market and MS are still trying, since none of their attempts have been successful and jury still out on the surface RT, again Surface Pro will be competing with ultrabooks.
Note: You allowed your opinion, but your opinion is not relevant when consumer has spoken and success of iPad is very clear to everyone
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
It failed because MS tried to do too much and not take baby steps, to introduce the product to market, plus it was too heavy and people thought it was laptop without steroids.
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
Keyboard and trackpad/mouse will never be successful with tablets and iPad has proven that their not required for average consumer, who wants to e-mail, surf internet, play games and have aps for their lifestyle. This is why MS fail, since they try focus business practices on the consumer. Why do we need a keyboard or mouse. If you think iPad is not innovative talk to business traveler like me, who has less weight to carry, when travelling.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done
You think that kickstand is innovative..lol as stated by others, iPad has many kickstand accessories and guess what, you can CHOOSE to have it or not. People do like choice.
P.S. I wrote in bold, so it was clear from your comments.
With all the top people "leaving" MS, it will be impossible for the board of directors to ask for Ballmer's resignation (i.e., fire him). There's nobody around to replace him. So this is just Ballmer protecting his job and juicy salary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji
(1) The Surface Pro doesn't compete with the iPad and vice versa. (2) They're two completely different devices. (3) If anything, the Surface Pro competes with the MB Air & will be priced accordingly - My guess $899 to $1099. I could be wrong but we'll see. (4) The iPad competes with the Surface RT.
As far as the Surface Pro being a great tablet is debatable even though it has a great tablet UI. There are many anecdotal reports of people finding the iPad heavy to hold for long periods of time so I don't see that being any different for the Surface seeing that it weighs the same if not more. (5) The way I view the Surface, and this is just my view, is as a thin netbook with a touchscreen (too heavy to hold as a tablet for long periods and not as powerful as a traditional laptop or notebook). And I don't say that as a criticism of the device as I'm sure there are many people who want a device like that.
As far the iPad's innovation. (6) First, it's the first tablet to garner major mainstream acceptance. It's obviously not the first tablet ever created but it is the first to make tablets popular. Second, it's the first device to bring computing to the masses that is simple and easy to understand. (7) I don't buy into the premise that the iPad is just a large iPod Touch. (8) The UI elements on the iPad are more sophisticated for one plus the opportunities for content-creation type apps are far greater on the iPad. One only has to do a google search to learn of the many content-creation examples people are using the iPad for - video, photography, music, illustration, creating blog posts, etc. Granted, there many not be many examples of Office productivity but there's more to Word & Excel when it comes to content creation.
Don't get me a wrong, I think the Surface is a cool device. (9) What I don't agree with is MS putting two UI layers on it. I would've preferred they kept the Surface a pure Metro UI and let tradtional desktops / laptops boot into the desktop environment. (10) Let the tablet be the tablet and let the traditional PC be the traditional PC. By making the Surface legacy-free it would've allowed MS to begin making a complete break from the past.
As far as the kickstand, I agree, that is a great feature.
1 - Kind of disagree on that.
2 - Not really. They're both tablets and they both have mobile UI's with their own mobile apps. The only difference is that the Surface offers users the ability to use the Desktop.
3 - Maybe, but the Air is a laptop and this is more of a tablet than a laptop.
4 - I'm not an RT fan because I need something that let's me wrong my favorite Windows 7 and 8 apps that normally would run fine on my laptop running Windows 8 Pro.
5 - But a Netbook is just a stripped-down laptop where as the Surface could be both that or a regular tablet.
6 - I will give it that, it was the first to make mainstream success but at the time of it's launch there was nothing else that could compete against it but 3 years later now there's plenty of other options from the Android side (I'd never use anything with Android though) and then there's the Surface that offers 2 UX's which is great because I don't have to worry about whether or not a file or program will be compatible on the tablet or better yet; I wouldn't have to run back & forth between my computer and tablet to do certain tasks because now I can get things done all in the same machine.
7 - Well I think it's just a bigger iPod Touch. I honestly can't see what makes the iPad so special. The only thing I could see is that for those who like to have things on a bigger screen - sure. But as far as innovation is concerned I can find anything that makes the iPad innovative.
8 - Okay.. I guess they'd be better because now the screen size is bigger so they have to change some of the elements to match the size of the screen. And as for content-creation that's where I think the Surface will be more successful because when the Pro is release it'll let other Windows programs run on the Surface giving the opportunity for more content-creation on the Desktop side and the tablet (metro) side.
9 - Well for me I'm glad they put two UX's on there. I find that it gives the tablet more capabilities than just apps that are coded for a 'mobile platform'. Although I do see your point that they should of let the Surface be a pure Metro UX. I do hope that in the near-future Microsoft does kill-off the Desktop side but for now while Windows 8 is booming I'm not so ready to give it up just yet.
10 - I do agree on that and like I said in #9 I hope that sometime in the future Microsoft does kill-off the Desktop UX on the Surface. I also agree about what you said stating that by Microsoft letting go of the Desktop they'd be allowing themselves to begin making a "complete break from the past".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
I'm not an Apple hater just to clear the air, I own a few Apple products and I love Apple </snip>
That's always a good start.
Whenever this statement appears, forum readers are immediately separated into two camps:
Those who don't believe you.
Those who don't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon Tourond
Quote:
1 - That's because there's been nothing else that can compete with it, but the Surface Pro is coming out in January and it'll come with an Intel Core i5 so it can run legacy Windows programs and since it can offer the Desktop experience + the tablet experience that makes it better than the iPad. I'd like to see what makes the iPad so special (honestly)? What does the iPad do that's so great? So far all I see in the iPad is an enlarged iPod Touch that does pretty much the exact same thing, but somehow that's innovation.
You are absolutely correct. Apple does not innovate. The smartphone wasn't a new idea, and neither was the tablet. No, what Apple does better than anyone else is observe. They watch their competitors and learn from their mistakes. They watched Microsoft's failed tablet strategy for years then realised that perhaps people didn't want a UI shoehorned from the desktop into a tablet; perhaps they didn't want a large clunky machine with loads of ports and slots they'd never use. Perhaps they wanted a tablet that was designed to be a tablet, and not a shrunken PC.
Turns out they were right.
And how did Microsoft respond? They took a tablet OS and tried to blow it out into a desktop operating sytem; the same mistake from a different angle, which is why most of the reviews seem to wonder exactly who the OS is aimed at.
2 - Actually Microsoft made a product called the Tablet PC in 2001 and the iPad was released in 2009 so I'm pretty sure Microsoft tried the tablet business first, even though they failed at it. This photo pretty much describes what you were saying about Microsoft "copying" the iPad.. http://i.imgur.com/E5GLT.jpg
Yes, they tried it several times over the years. The real 'innovation' here is that Apple actually created a tablet that people wanted to buy. Ballmer was in the news yesterday, and he described the Surface sales as 'modest', so the jury is still out on whether or not they've actually succeeded this time round. The fact that Sinofsky is out on his ear suggests not.
3 - Actually it's got a whole new revolutionary OS that's faster, more secure, and offers two UX's (tablet and Desktop). The Tablet PC failed because it only offered a Desktop experience and of course it's hard to navigate a desktop OS on a tablet because you're used to using a mouse & keyboard.
No, it doesn't. The problem is that the UIs are the same for two completely different user paradigms. You can slip back and into regular Windows if you want to, but the experience is an inconsistent mess (I have used it, yes).
4 - It's not just an "integrated keyboard" like you mentioned. This keyboard is a keyboard with a trackpad built-in and when you flip it over it's a cover and it's easy to setup, just click-in. Also the Touch Cover is only 3mm thin.
Right, so it's something like this then:
But on the subject of the keybooard cover, here's something you should take a look at:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20120194448.pdf
It's a patent Apple filed in August 2011 for a flexible display cover with a built-in keyboard. That's a shade under a year before MS announced the Surface and it's keyboard cover.
Now from the Samsung court case we know that Microsoft had to license certain technologies from Apple to build the Surface. I suspect that the keyboard could be part of that deal.
5 - The Kickstand is actually innovative because you (1) don't have to keep the surface completely on it's back or (2) have to constantly hold it or (3) have to buy an accessory to get the job done.
The kickstand is fixed at one position, which means that you have to be of the Microsoft-approved height to get the most out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
Why would you send $899-1099 to get a tablet with a keyboard, when you can get a ultrabook that costs a lot less and gives you a bigger screen. Btw if you think that Surface Pro will compete with iPad, you do not know the PC market.
If I wanted something a bigger screen I'd get an ultrabook but the Surface is a tablet and it offers touchscreen capabilities and it also offers the Touch Cover but again, it's optional. I don't need to get the keyboard if I didn't want to. And just because I know the Surface will compete with the iPad doesn't mean that I don't know the PC market.
You are right MS did try the tablet market and MS are still trying, since none of their attempts have been successful and jury still out on the surface RT, again Surface Pro will be competing with ultrabooks.
Note: You allowed your opinion, but your opinion is not relevant when consumer has spoken and success of iPad is very clear to everyone
I'm not sure what Microsoft was thinking about releasing the RT but what I do know is that if the Pro is anything like I've heard it's going to be then it'll be definitely competing with the iPad, and maybe with Ultrabooks too depending on which one we're talking about. The iPad was successful because it was the first tablet in years that was easy to use, has a great ecosystem and runs a great mobile OS but now there's a lot of competition around but the point is that the Surface Pro offers 2 UX's plus the capability to run legacy Windows apps whereas the iPad only offers 1 UX.
Keyboard and trackpad/mouse will never be successful with tablets and iPad has proven that their not required for average consumer, who wants to e-mail, surf internet, play games and have aps for their lifestyle. This is why MS fail, since they try focus business practices on the consumer. Why do we need a keyboard or mouse. If you think iPad is not innovative talk to business traveler like me, who has less weight to carry, when travelling.How can you be so sure that keyboards and trackpads will never be successful? It's been proven on the iPad, but you're forgetting that you've only mentioned the iPad. The iPad is not the only tablet around today. "Why do we need a keyboard or mouse trackpad" Have you seen how difficult it is to use a Desktop OS on a touch screen. Without a keyboard or trackpad it'd be a lot harder to navigate a Desktop environment on a touchscreen. But with the Surface they offer that but at least they don't push it on the users. It's optional.
You think that kickstand is innovative..lol as stated by others, iPad has many kickstand accessories and guess what, you can CHOOSE to have it or not. People do like choice.
I think it's innovative when they have it built-in because then people don't have to rely on other accessories to do the job. Believe it or not people like it when a product comes built-in with something that normally would require an accessory to make the product work the way they want it to. And it's not like the Kickstand is always going to be open. If you don't want it open, by all means keep it closed...
"People do like choice" One could choose to get the Surface with or without the Touch Cover. One could choose to get it in 32GB or 64GB. One could choose one of several colors for their Touch Cover (should they choose to get one). One could choose to keep the Kickstand open or closed. People do like choice, and clearly Microsoft is giving users choices.
All my answers are the one's that aren't in bold while yours remain in bold.
Great picture Rogifan! That sums things up pretty nicely.
The Surface is dumb, awkward and makes no sense.
Who wants some kind of frankenstein type hybrid device that doesn't even know if it's a laptop or a tablet? And the real funny part is that it's worse at both things!
And I still think that the colors of those keyboards are puke worthy. Are they marketing it to 12 year old girls? Judging by that awful Glee-like TV ad, I think that they just might be. Who in their right mind watches Glee by the way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
(1) For the sake of argument... let's say the iPad isn't innovative...
(2) So what can we say about all the other companies who also ventured down the tablet road?
If the iPad is "just a big iPod Touch"... what are all those other guys' tablets?
Just like your picture earlier... Picard and Gates had tablets a decade before the iPad. So yeah... I can kinda see why the iPad might be considered derivative.
(3) Did anyone ever say "the Playbook is just a big Blackberry Storm" or "the Touchpad is just a big Palm Pre" ??
And let's not forget that those came after Star Trek, the first MS Tablet PC... and the iPad...
1 - Well it isn't..
2 - If you make a product that is the same thing but smaller, that's not innovation. There's nothing new about making the same thing smaller and if that means that most of the tablets around today are just bigger versions of another product then yes the tablet is not innovative. If there are features in the OS itself that make the tablet worth using then that's an exception to be made. What I'm trying to say is that if there's something in the iPad that the iPod Touch doesn't do (I mean something really good here) then the iPad would have some worth to it but since it's pretty much a bigger iPod Touch then I can't see anything that makes the iPad innovative.
3 - I don't recall much of that but remember that the iPad is a really successful tablet so the more successful it is the more popularity and criticism it's going to get, but now that you mention that I guess you could say that the Playbook is a bigger version but I haven't used a BlackBerry Storm or Palm Pre so I can't confirm that but if it is just the same thing but in a bigger product then I can't see where the innovation is.