They should rename the ATP podcast to the Anal Tech Podcast because it's turned into, for the most part, a 2-hour rant fest. When doesn't Siracusa complain? Or Marco for that matter? A lot of these tech bloggers / podcasters that are asking who this device is for are usually looking at it from only their use case or frame of reference, as if they've lost touch with how the "masses" use computing devices.
The best post I've read that answers that question is written by Ben Bajarin of Techpinions;
Granted, this is behind a paywall, so I won't post the entire article out of respect for his blog, but if you do get a chance I suggest reading it. But the last sentence sums it very nicely;
"The promise of something like the iPad and the iPad Pro, is to empower the masses to do MORE than they can on their smartphones<em style="color:rgb(68,68,68);font-style:italic;padding:2px 10px;">with a computing paradigm that focuses on simplicity but still yields sophisticated results."</em>
I've grown sick of the ATP podcast also. Arment really gets on my nerves.
Are you sure YouTube limitation is imposed by Apple and not Google ?
No doubt it's stupid Google. But that's beside the point. When will Apple's tablets become something truly "Pro" and not restricted to this limited "mobile" category on which Google and others impose foolish limitations?
Limit a truly "mobile" PHONE to (a) save bandwidth and (b) since you probably won't notice the difference with 1080p anyway, but to limit a 12" iPad "PRO" to the same restriction, only because it runs iOS, is stupid. And although that's outside Apple's control to some extent, my point is that even Tim Cook is pitching the iPad PRO as a laptop replacement, and he's not worried about cannibalization. But it's not a laptop replacement insofar as you have these stupid limitations in place (by companies outside Apple) on "mobile" platforms. In addition, you don't have serious "PRO" productivity apps on the iPad Pro either. (At least, not yet.)
It was a decent publication during the days of print. When it went digital, it essentially became a collection of low-class, poorly researched, unvenly written blogs.
I think the apps you are originally referring to would use subscriptions to fund them like Adobe does with their CC suite.
You are right, except that only companies as large as Adobe and Microsoft have the pull to get customers to sign up for subscriptions. Subscriptions are simply not going to work for new developers without a pre-existing monster brand like that behind them.
As someone who works in software and tried to pitch making fully functional iOS versions of desktop apps, I can say you are bang on here. The vast majority of apps are designed to be one-hit wonders because there's very little money to be made after that initial sale (if you're a paid app).
In-app purchase models are great for funding games, but don't work well for major desktop apps like word processors and other content creation tools. People want to buy the full featured app and not have to buy add-ons. However, once you've sold that full featured app to them, there's no way to fund upgrades year after year unless you create a whole new app each year. Which doesn't sit well with people who already paid for the same app last year. The only other business model is the paid subscription model (ala Adobe), which sucks because customers lose access to their apps if they don't pay their subscription.
I prefer the paid subscription model for apps. Why should I pay for something Im not using? And more importantly pay it all upfront... It makes no sense. There is no incentive for the company to improve their app and fix bugs after the initial purchase. There is no incentive for the user to keep paying once they have a version of the product. Theyll be using it well after the shelf life has expired and the software company releases new versions that dont get sold enough to justify the upgrades and improvements.....
Id rather pay for it for the time I need it. Its paying ala carte so to speak. I think subscription pricing is a much better way to go for all parties involved. You pay a much smaller fee for the product and if its not working for you, you can cancel at anytime. That is incentive for companies to keep upgrading and for users to keep paying.
I think Apple knows the iPad sales are turning in to iPhone sales, that's why they are upping the screen size, to try and differentiate it a bit more. In fact when the iPhone came out I predicted on this forum that the iPad screen size would shortly after be bumped, to spread everything out again. But it's new territory, tablet that big, are other manufacturers making ones so big (that aren't 2-in-1s)? It's almost a new category of device.
When a new category of device comes out, whether it sinks or swims ultimately depends on whether apps arise that are so amazingly suited to that form factor that you can't imagine them on anything else.
Samsung released 12.2" tablet called Galaxy Tab... PRO back in March 2014 (announced in Jan 2014). It's not a 2-in-1. I'm sorry then, it's not "new territory", it's not "a new category of device". Similarly with the iPhone 6 , a slightly belated response to the Samsung Galaxy Note phablet.
I'm not a Samsung fanboy - to the contrary - but get your facts right when getting excited. I think Apple has a problem. Neither the iPhone Plus, nor the Watch, nor the iPad Pro are "a new category of device". They had all been introduced by the Android guys before. Apple just gives them a premium feeling and their own OS - but that's not what we expect from Apple, is it?
its the worlds most valuable company even under conservative estimates. I dont see why thats a failure. And thats a terrible article. It didnt actually make a point... It just said Tim Cook isnt as exciting to Wall Street because he didnt found Apple. WTF did I just read?
I prefer the paid subscription model for apps. Why should I pay for something Im not using? And more importantly pay it all upfront... It makes no sense. There is no incentive for the company to improve their app and fix bigs. There is no incentive for the user to keep paying once they have a version of the product. Theyll be using it well after the shelf life has expired and the software company releases new versions that dont get sold enough to justify the upgrades and improvements.....
Id rather pay for it for the time I need it. Its paying ala carte so to speak. I think subscription pricing is a much better way to go for all parties involved. You pay a much smaller fee for the product and if its not working for you, you can cancel at anytime. That is incentive for companies to keep upgrading and for users to keep paying.
From the software company side of things, the subscription model definitely makes the most sense to continue to fund development. The fact that software will stop working forces users to continue paying for development.
However, from the perspective of a user, it leaves a bad taste to pay for something and not truly "own" it the same way you would with a piece of hardware. I mean, imagine if you paid for a Mac/iPad/iPhone and after a year, it just stopped working unless you paid again?
I prefer making it so that the user can pay once and continue using as long as they want. However, to get access to new features/bugfixes/support for newer operating systems, they'll need to pay for the new version. With their initial purchase, they'll get a couple of bugfix/point releases, but no major upgrade releases.
Sure you'll get a number of cheapskates who just keep using that one version they paid for. However, with enough added features and potentially having software not work (or work well) when someone updates their OS, I think you'll get enough people paying for an upgrade to fund development. It's also more "honest" in the sense that, if you add features users aren't interested in, they won't pay. Whereas, if you force a subscription on them, they have to pay to continue using the basic features even if they aren't interested in the particular directions you're taking an app with new features.
The problem with the App Store is that you can only charge for the app purchase and in-app content. You can't charge for an update. Which means that, to make the model I prefer work, you need to release different versions of the app. That makes it a bit of a pain for users to move data to new versions.
I believe this is part of the reason why you don't see larger apps which may take 3, 4, 5 years or more to fully be developed (like most major content creation desktop apps/suites) on the App Store.
As someone who works in software and tried to pitch making fully functional iOS versions of desktop apps, I can say you are bang on here. The vast majority of apps are designed to be one-hit wonders because there's very little money to be made after that initial sale (if you're a paid app).
In-app purchase models are great for funding games, but don't work well for major desktop apps like word processors and other content creation tools. People want to buy the full featured app and not have to buy add-ons. However, once you've sold that full featured app to them, there's no way to fund upgrades year after year unless you create a whole new app each year. Which doesn't sit well with people who already paid for the same app last year. The only other business model is the paid subscription model (ala Adobe), which sucks because customers lose access to their apps if they don't pay their subscription.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW
No doubt it's stupid Google. But that's beside the point. When will Apple's tablets become something truly "Pro" and not restricted to this limited "mobile" category on which Google and others impose foolish limitations?
Limit a truly "mobile" PHONE to (a) save bandwidth and (b) since you probably won't notice the difference with 1080p anyway, but to limit a 12" iPad "PRO" to the same restriction, only because it runs iOS, is stupid. And although that's outside Apple's control to some extent, my point is that even Tim Cook is pitching the iPad PRO as a laptop replacement, and he's not worried about cannibalization. But it's not a laptop replacement insofar as you have these stupid limitations in place (by companies outside Apple) on "mobile" platforms. In addition, you don't have serious "PRO" productivity apps on the iPad Pro either. (At least, not yet.)
"my point is that even Tim Cook is pitching the iPad PRO as a laptop replacement,"
Not really. There was another Tim Cook interview today where he "clarifies" it more;
"The A9X can’t quite get up to the level of a modern U-series Core i5 based on Broadwell or Skylake (see the 2015 MacBook Air and Surface Pro 4 results), but it’s roughly on the same level as a Core i5 from 2013 or so and it’s well ahead of Core M."
"Things are even more impressive on the GPU side, where the OpenGL version of the GFXBench test shows the A9X beating not just every previous iDevice, but every Intel GPU up to and including the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in the 15-inch MacBook Pro and the Intel HD 520 in the Surface Pro 4"
"The A9X can’t quite get up to the level of a modern U-series Core i5 based on Broadwell or Skylake (see the 2015 MacBook Air and Surface Pro 4 results), but it’s roughly on the same level as a Core i5 from 2013 or so and it’s well ahead of Core M."
"Things are even more impressive on the GPU side, where the OpenGL version of the GFXBench test shows the A9X beating not just every previous iDevice, but every Intel GPU up to and including the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in the 15-inch MacBook Pro and the Intel HD 520 in the Surface Pro 4"
And that's just measuring for the pre-set performance of the device, not measuring the performance per watt. I'd think Apple has a considerably higher ceiling for what they can do with their A-series chips, not to mention optimizing their their OS and A-series chips to better suit their needs more so than what Intel allows.
Market saturation. When you have a device that does what you need it to do, there's no point upgrading it. I don't upgrade my devices until Apple no longer provides OS updates.
I think the sales are down because of longterm usage iPads and Chromebooks are also starting to eat into the territory. The Chromebook is a laptop like device and more familiar to people and the price is cheap for these things and thats what drives them! I predicted this years ago that our school would be buying them like crazy once certain people took control and its happening today because of the price! VMware is being used on the servers and now on old client hardware so we don't have to upgrade them and slowly phase them out and replace them with $200 dumb terminals and also include them in tuition and hand them out to students so they can remote in and get the schools image and software at home and almost anywhere and again they are cheap at $200-300! They have no viruses that I am aware and constantly updated. Getting them on students gets the school out from buying labs of hardware and opens up more rooms and getting rid of labs. I think this is whats hurting the iPads and if business catch on its only going to get worse!
I have seen the same thing. We have loads of Chromebooks at our schools and in a completely different district that my sons attend, they have issued every child their own Chromebook and a case to go with it. They are everywhere and while some may say it doesn't count because it is just school and kids, Google is getting every kid to use Chrome, to use Gmail, to access YouTube, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foggyhill
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashxx
I think the sales are down because of longterm usage iPads and Chromebooks are also starting to eat into the territory. The Chromebook is a laptop like device and more familiar to people and the price is cheap for these things and thats what drives them! I predicted this years ago that our school would be buying them like crazy once certain people took control and its happening today because of the price! VMware is being used on the servers and now on old client hardware so we don't have to upgrade them and slowly phase them out and replace them with $200 dumb terminals and also include them in tuition and hand them out to students so they can remote in and get the schools image and software at home and almost anywhere and again they are cheap at $200-300! They have no viruses that I am aware and constantly updated. Getting them on students gets the school out from buying labs of hardware and opens up more rooms and getting rid of labs. I think this is whats hurting the iPads and if business catch on its only going to get worse!
Unless you prove that people buying chromebook and Ipad are the same people, which I doubt; one wouldn't be eating into the other AT ALL. Apple will never compete for the low end of the market EVER. Right now, they got 90% of profits in phones, tablets, desktops, laptops, etc. That's how they roll. If crapware sells more unit, they're not going there, just like they're not selling $100 phones.
These Chromebooks are not the low end of the market. These are not $50-99 dollar tablets. These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads.
Now these could become future Mac sales as well and the real loser no matter what is going to be Microsoft. When my son and their friends show me these school issued Chromebooks, every kid of their decidedly nerdy clique had duel booted Linux on them and have the school ChomeOS and Linux running concurrently. The Linux partition allows them to install games (like Minecraft) and so forth while they can use a key toggle to go back to the Chromebook side. Kids familiar with Linux are more inclined to become Mac users than PC users in my opinion. Both my sons own PC's and while they love gaming on them, they regularly loath having to deal with Windows and the problems there. I guess I'd call it a toss up but it does seem like Apple might be the path of most future resistance. We are talking about kids who use loads of Google services. They use a Linux OS to be able to circumvent the school restrictions on the Chromebooks but otherwise enjoy the machines themselves well enough. They own PC laptops but are ambivalent at best to Windows. They've all been issued Chromebooks so the only thing they aren't guaranteed to be touching at this point is Apple items. My sons both own iPhones because I pass mine down. Also my sons all buy their games through Steam. I know Steam is also on Linux and on Mac.
When given their choice of laptop they chose PC for gaming. So have all their peers. Windows hasn't left a great taste in their mouth though. Their future decisions will probably involve something that uses Google services well, lets them configure as they want without virus concerns and that lets them use Steam as well. That might be Apple but it also might be Windows 10 improved or a Steam type machine or whatever Google does with merging Chrome and Android. In the meantime though it certainly isn't an iPad. My kids have never asked me for an iPad. They've never even clamored for one that I've witnessed. The numbers show Chromebooks taking the sales for now.
I have seen the same thing. We have loads of Chromebooks at our schools and in a completely different district that my sons attend, they have issued every child their own Chromebook and a case to go with it. They are everywhere and while some may say it doesn't count because it is just school and kids, Google is getting every kid to use Chrome, to use Gmail, to access YouTube, etc.
These Chromebooks are not the low end of the market. These are not $50-99 dollar tablets. These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads.
Now these could become future Mac sales as well and the real loser no matter what is going to be Microsoft. When my son and their friends show me these school issued Chromebooks, every kid of their decidedly nerdy clique had duel booted Linux on them and have the school ChomeOS and Linux running concurrently. The Linux partition allows them to install games (like Minecraft) and so forth while they can use a key toggle to go back to the Chromebook side. Kids familiar with Linux are more inclined to become Mac users than PC users in my opinion. Both my sons own PC's and while they love gaming on them, they regularly loath having to deal with Windows and the problems there. I guess I'd call it a toss up but it does seem like Apple might be the path of most future resistance. We are talking about kids who use loads of Google services. They use a Linux OS to be able to circumvent the school restrictions on the Chromebooks but otherwise enjoy the machines themselves well enough. They own PC laptops but are ambivalent at best to Windows. They've all been issued Chromebooks so the only thing they aren't guaranteed to be touching at this point is Apple items. My sons both own iPhones because I pass mine down. Also my sons all buy their games through Steam. I know Steam is also on Linux and on Mac.
When given their choice of laptop they chose PC for gaming. So have all their peers. Windows hasn't left a great taste in their mouth though. Their future decisions will probably involve something that uses Google services well, lets them configure as they want without virus concerns and that lets them use Steam as well. That might be Apple but it also might be Windows 10 improved or a Steam type machine or whatever Google does with merging Chrome and Android.
"These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads."
That right there is the biggest reason schools are adopting Chromebooks. If given the choice, how many students would actually choose a Chromebook over an iPad Air 2 / iPad Pro?
I have seen the same thing. We have loads of Chromebooks at our schools and in a completely different district that my sons attend, they have issued every child their own Chromebook and a case to go with it. They are everywhere and while some may say it doesn't count because it is just school and kids, Google is getting every kid to use Chrome, to use Gmail, to access YouTube, etc.
These Chromebooks are not the low end of the market. These are not $50-99 dollar tablets. These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads.
Now these could become future Mac sales as well and the real loser no matter what is going to be Microsoft. When my son and their friends show me these school issued Chromebooks, every kid of their decidedly nerdy clique had duel booted Linux on them and have the school ChomeOS and Linux running concurrently. The Linux partition allows them to install games (like Minecraft) and so forth while they can use a key toggle to go back to the Chromebook side. Kids familiar with Linux are more inclined to become Mac users than PC users in my opinion. Both my sons own PC's and while they love gaming on them, they regularly loath having to deal with Windows and the problems there. I guess I'd call it a toss up but it does seem like Apple might be the path of most future resistance. We are talking about kids who use loads of Google services. They use a Linux OS to be able to circumvent the school restrictions on the Chromebooks but otherwise enjoy the machines themselves well enough. They own PC laptops but are ambivalent at best to Windows. They've all been issued Chromebooks so the only thing they aren't guaranteed to be touching at this point is Apple items. My sons both own iPhones because I pass mine down. Also my sons all buy their games through Steam. I know Steam is also on Linux and on Mac.
When given their choice of laptop they chose PC for gaming. So have all their peers. Windows hasn't left a great taste in their mouth though. Their future decisions will probably involve something that uses Google services well, lets them configure as they want without virus concerns and that lets them use Steam as well. That might be Apple but it also might be Windows 10 improved or a Steam type machine or whatever Google does with merging Chrome and Android.
"These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads."
That right there is the biggest reason schools are adopting Chromebooks. If given the choice, how many students would actually choose a Chromebook over an iPad Air 2 / iPad Pro?
I suspect the majority would choose Chromebooks. This becomes especially true when talking about ability to easily add storage to a tablet/laptop/hybrid. I think Apple really has missed the boat here. My Macbook Pro has an SD slot. So do the Macbook Air but the iPads and Macbook, which are clearly the future direction, do not. On a phone this becomes a bit easier to sell but not on a laptop or hybrid laptop/tablet. While at 45 years old, my time is money to the point where Apple is the only choice I'll endorse. My son however asks for a Kingston Digital 64 GB microSD off Amazon for $20 and creates a whole second drive on this Chromebook that can do whatever he wants.
However even for me as an analog, I've given up on AppleTV. I have two little Fire TV Sticks that I use for everything now. We subscribe to Prime and Netflix. This article probably sums it up better than I can.
In short I didn't wait for the Apple solution in terms of upgraded AppleTV. I mean the wait was years. My Fire TV sticks were a $20 sale item but are normally $40-50. If I wanted to go in the Apple direction Amazon has a Fire TV Gaming edition with included game controller and MicroSD slot. I'm probably not that heavy of a user but those that will seek that are also going to look at all the $300 dedicated gaming bundles this holiday season as well. (PS4, XB1, etc.) Apple seems stuck in the middle with TV.
Comments
I've grown sick of the ATP podcast also. Arment really gets on my nerves.
Just read this Forbes article on Tim Cook being a major problem for Apple. I totally disagree, but wanted to hear form others here what they thought:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaysomaney/2015/11/15/all-excuses-aside-apples-major-problem-is-tim-cook/
He lost me on the first paragraph. It's bullshit.
Are you sure YouTube limitation is imposed by Apple and not Google ?
No doubt it's stupid Google. But that's beside the point. When will Apple's tablets become something truly "Pro" and not restricted to this limited "mobile" category on which Google and others impose foolish limitations?
Limit a truly "mobile" PHONE to (a) save bandwidth and (b) since you probably won't notice the difference with 1080p anyway, but to limit a 12" iPad "PRO" to the same restriction, only because it runs iOS, is stupid. And although that's outside Apple's control to some extent, my point is that even Tim Cook is pitching the iPad PRO as a laptop replacement, and he's not worried about cannibalization. But it's not a laptop replacement insofar as you have these stupid limitations in place (by companies outside Apple) on "mobile" platforms. In addition, you don't have serious "PRO" productivity apps on the iPad Pro either. (At least, not yet.)
Forbes!? Are they still around?
It was a decent publication during the days of print. When it went digital, it essentially became a collection of low-class, poorly researched, unvenly written blogs.
I think the apps you are originally referring to would use subscriptions to fund them like Adobe does with their CC suite.
You are right, except that only companies as large as Adobe and Microsoft have the pull to get customers to sign up for subscriptions. Subscriptions are simply not going to work for new developers without a pre-existing monster brand like that behind them.
Id rather pay for it for the time I need it. Its paying ala carte so to speak. I think subscription pricing is a much better way to go for all parties involved. You pay a much smaller fee for the product and if its not working for you, you can cancel at anytime. That is incentive for companies to keep upgrading and for users to keep paying.
I too am in software land as a engineer.
Samsung released 12.2" tablet called Galaxy Tab... PRO back in March 2014 (announced in Jan 2014). It's not a 2-in-1. I'm sorry then, it's not "new territory", it's not "a new category of device". Similarly with the iPhone 6 , a slightly belated response to the Samsung Galaxy Note phablet.
I'm not a Samsung fanboy - to the contrary - but get your facts right when getting excited. I think Apple has a problem. Neither the iPhone Plus, nor the Watch, nor the iPad Pro are "a new category of device". They had all been introduced by the Android guys before. Apple just gives them a premium feeling and their own OS - but that's not what we expect from Apple, is it?
I prefer the paid subscription model for apps. Why should I pay for something Im not using? And more importantly pay it all upfront... It makes no sense. There is no incentive for the company to improve their app and fix bigs. There is no incentive for the user to keep paying once they have a version of the product. Theyll be using it well after the shelf life has expired and the software company releases new versions that dont get sold enough to justify the upgrades and improvements.....
Id rather pay for it for the time I need it. Its paying ala carte so to speak. I think subscription pricing is a much better way to go for all parties involved. You pay a much smaller fee for the product and if its not working for you, you can cancel at anytime. That is incentive for companies to keep upgrading and for users to keep paying.
From the software company side of things, the subscription model definitely makes the most sense to continue to fund development. The fact that software will stop working forces users to continue paying for development.
However, from the perspective of a user, it leaves a bad taste to pay for something and not truly "own" it the same way you would with a piece of hardware. I mean, imagine if you paid for a Mac/iPad/iPhone and after a year, it just stopped working unless you paid again?
I prefer making it so that the user can pay once and continue using as long as they want. However, to get access to new features/bugfixes/support for newer operating systems, they'll need to pay for the new version. With their initial purchase, they'll get a couple of bugfix/point releases, but no major upgrade releases.
Sure you'll get a number of cheapskates who just keep using that one version they paid for. However, with enough added features and potentially having software not work (or work well) when someone updates their OS, I think you'll get enough people paying for an upgrade to fund development. It's also more "honest" in the sense that, if you add features users aren't interested in, they won't pay. Whereas, if you force a subscription on them, they have to pay to continue using the basic features even if they aren't interested in the particular directions you're taking an app with new features.
The problem with the App Store is that you can only charge for the app purchase and in-app content. You can't charge for an update. Which means that, to make the model I prefer work, you need to release different versions of the app. That makes it a bit of a pain for users to move data to new versions.
I believe this is part of the reason why you don't see larger apps which may take 3, 4, 5 years or more to fully be developed (like most major content creation desktop apps/suites) on the App Store.
As someone who works in software and tried to pitch making fully functional iOS versions of desktop apps, I can say you are bang on here. The vast majority of apps are designed to be one-hit wonders because there's very little money to be made after that initial sale (if you're a paid app).
In-app purchase models are great for funding games, but don't work well for major desktop apps like word processors and other content creation tools. People want to buy the full featured app and not have to buy add-ons. However, once you've sold that full featured app to them, there's no way to fund upgrades year after year unless you create a whole new app each year. Which doesn't sit well with people who already paid for the same app last year. The only other business model is the paid subscription model (ala Adobe), which sucks because customers lose access to their apps if they don't pay their subscription.
No doubt it's stupid Google. But that's beside the point. When will Apple's tablets become something truly "Pro" and not restricted to this limited "mobile" category on which Google and others impose foolish limitations?
Limit a truly "mobile" PHONE to (a) save bandwidth and (b) since you probably won't notice the difference with 1080p anyway, but to limit a 12" iPad "PRO" to the same restriction, only because it runs iOS, is stupid. And although that's outside Apple's control to some extent, my point is that even Tim Cook is pitching the iPad PRO as a laptop replacement, and he's not worried about cannibalization. But it's not a laptop replacement insofar as you have these stupid limitations in place (by companies outside Apple) on "mobile" platforms. In addition, you don't have serious "PRO" productivity apps on the iPad Pro either. (At least, not yet.)
"my point is that even Tim Cook is pitching the iPad PRO as a laptop replacement,"
Not really. There was another Tim Cook interview today where he "clarifies" it more;
http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/tim-cook-apple-wont-create-converged-macbook-and-ipad-34201986.html
"Last week, Cook appeared to suggest that PCs had outlived their usefulness."
“I think if you’re looking at a PC, why would you buy a PC anymore? No really, why would you buy one?” he was quoted as saying in The Daily Telegraph.
"However, it is understood that Cook was referring to Windows PCs and not Apple ones"
" “We don’t regard Macs and PCs to be the same,” he said."
"Cook said that both Macs and iPads have a strong future"
End of the day, it's up to you if you take him on his word.
But Microsoft is now facing competition from iPad Pro, which offers a lower entry price with higher performance,
Daniel, that's simply not true. The A9X doesn't even outperform the Core m3 Surface Pro 4 model (and that's before speed-shift is enabled).
Daniel, that's simply not true. The A9X doesn't even outperform the Core m3 Surface Pro 4 model (and that's before speed-shift is enabled).
Wrong.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/11/ipad-pro-review-mac-like-speed-with-all-the-virtues-and-limitations-of-ios/4/#h2
"The A9X can’t quite get up to the level of a modern U-series Core i5 based on Broadwell or Skylake (see the 2015 MacBook Air and Surface Pro 4 results), but it’s roughly on the same level as a Core i5 from 2013 or so and it’s well ahead of Core M."
"Things are even more impressive on the GPU side, where the OpenGL version of the GFXBench test shows the A9X beating not just every previous iDevice, but every Intel GPU up to and including the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in the 15-inch MacBook Pro and the Intel HD 520 in the Surface Pro 4"
And that's just measuring for the pre-set performance of the device, not measuring the performance per watt. I'd think Apple has a considerably higher ceiling for what they can do with their A-series chips, not to mention optimizing their their OS and A-series chips to better suit their needs more so than what Intel allows.
Market saturation. When you have a device that does what you need it to do, there's no point upgrading it. I don't upgrade my devices until Apple no longer provides OS updates.
I think the sales are down because of longterm usage iPads and Chromebooks are also starting to eat into the territory. The Chromebook is a laptop like device and more familiar to people and the price is cheap for these things and thats what drives them! I predicted this years ago that our school would be buying them like crazy once certain people took control and its happening today because of the price! VMware is being used on the servers and now on old client hardware so we don't have to upgrade them and slowly phase them out and replace them with $200 dumb terminals and also include them in tuition and hand them out to students so they can remote in and get the schools image and software at home and almost anywhere and again they are cheap at $200-300! They have no viruses that I am aware and constantly updated. Getting them on students gets the school out from buying labs of hardware and opens up more rooms and getting rid of labs. I think this is whats hurting the iPads and if business catch on its only going to get worse!
I have seen the same thing. We have loads of Chromebooks at our schools and in a completely different district that my sons attend, they have issued every child their own Chromebook and a case to go with it. They are everywhere and while some may say it doesn't count because it is just school and kids, Google is getting every kid to use Chrome, to use Gmail, to access YouTube, etc.
I think the sales are down because of longterm usage iPads and Chromebooks are also starting to eat into the territory. The Chromebook is a laptop like device and more familiar to people and the price is cheap for these things and thats what drives them! I predicted this years ago that our school would be buying them like crazy once certain people took control and its happening today because of the price! VMware is being used on the servers and now on old client hardware so we don't have to upgrade them and slowly phase them out and replace them with $200 dumb terminals and also include them in tuition and hand them out to students so they can remote in and get the schools image and software at home and almost anywhere and again they are cheap at $200-300! They have no viruses that I am aware and constantly updated. Getting them on students gets the school out from buying labs of hardware and opens up more rooms and getting rid of labs. I think this is whats hurting the iPads and if business catch on its only going to get worse!
Unless you prove that people buying chromebook and Ipad are the same people, which I doubt; one wouldn't be eating into the other AT ALL. Apple will never compete for the low end of the market EVER. Right now, they got 90% of profits in phones, tablets, desktops, laptops, etc. That's how they roll. If crapware sells more unit, they're not going there, just like they're not selling $100 phones.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/npd-chromebooks-outsell-windows-laptops/
These Chromebooks are not the low end of the market. These are not $50-99 dollar tablets. These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads.
Now these could become future Mac sales as well and the real loser no matter what is going to be Microsoft. When my son and their friends show me these school issued Chromebooks, every kid of their decidedly nerdy clique had duel booted Linux on them and have the school ChomeOS and Linux running concurrently. The Linux partition allows them to install games (like Minecraft) and so forth while they can use a key toggle to go back to the Chromebook side. Kids familiar with Linux are more inclined to become Mac users than PC users in my opinion. Both my sons own PC's and while they love gaming on them, they regularly loath having to deal with Windows and the problems there. I guess I'd call it a toss up but it does seem like Apple might be the path of most future resistance. We are talking about kids who use loads of Google services. They use a Linux OS to be able to circumvent the school restrictions on the Chromebooks but otherwise enjoy the machines themselves well enough. They own PC laptops but are ambivalent at best to Windows. They've all been issued Chromebooks so the only thing they aren't guaranteed to be touching at this point is Apple items. My sons both own iPhones because I pass mine down. Also my sons all buy their games through Steam. I know Steam is also on Linux and on Mac.
When given their choice of laptop they chose PC for gaming. So have all their peers. Windows hasn't left a great taste in their mouth though. Their future decisions will probably involve something that uses Google services well, lets them configure as they want without virus concerns and that lets them use Steam as well. That might be Apple but it also might be Windows 10 improved or a Steam type machine or whatever Google does with merging Chrome and Android. In the meantime though it certainly isn't an iPad. My kids have never asked me for an iPad. They've never even clamored for one that I've witnessed. The numbers show Chromebooks taking the sales for now.
I have seen the same thing. We have loads of Chromebooks at our schools and in a completely different district that my sons attend, they have issued every child their own Chromebook and a case to go with it. They are everywhere and while some may say it doesn't count because it is just school and kids, Google is getting every kid to use Chrome, to use Gmail, to access YouTube, etc.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/npd-chromebooks-outsell-windows-laptops/
These Chromebooks are not the low end of the market. These are not $50-99 dollar tablets. These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads.
Now these could become future Mac sales as well and the real loser no matter what is going to be Microsoft. When my son and their friends show me these school issued Chromebooks, every kid of their decidedly nerdy clique had duel booted Linux on them and have the school ChomeOS and Linux running concurrently. The Linux partition allows them to install games (like Minecraft) and so forth while they can use a key toggle to go back to the Chromebook side. Kids familiar with Linux are more inclined to become Mac users than PC users in my opinion. Both my sons own PC's and while they love gaming on them, they regularly loath having to deal with Windows and the problems there. I guess I'd call it a toss up but it does seem like Apple might be the path of most future resistance. We are talking about kids who use loads of Google services. They use a Linux OS to be able to circumvent the school restrictions on the Chromebooks but otherwise enjoy the machines themselves well enough. They own PC laptops but are ambivalent at best to Windows. They've all been issued Chromebooks so the only thing they aren't guaranteed to be touching at this point is Apple items. My sons both own iPhones because I pass mine down. Also my sons all buy their games through Steam. I know Steam is also on Linux and on Mac.
When given their choice of laptop they chose PC for gaming. So have all their peers. Windows hasn't left a great taste in their mouth though. Their future decisions will probably involve something that uses Google services well, lets them configure as they want without virus concerns and that lets them use Steam as well. That might be Apple but it also might be Windows 10 improved or a Steam type machine or whatever Google does with merging Chrome and Android.
"These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads."
That right there is the biggest reason schools are adopting Chromebooks. If given the choice, how many students would actually choose a Chromebook over an iPad Air 2 / iPad Pro?
I have seen the same thing. We have loads of Chromebooks at our schools and in a completely different district that my sons attend, they have issued every child their own Chromebook and a case to go with it. They are everywhere and while some may say it doesn't count because it is just school and kids, Google is getting every kid to use Chrome, to use Gmail, to access YouTube, etc.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/npd-chromebooks-outsell-windows-laptops/
These Chromebooks are not the low end of the market. These are not $50-99 dollar tablets. These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads.
Now these could become future Mac sales as well and the real loser no matter what is going to be Microsoft. When my son and their friends show me these school issued Chromebooks, every kid of their decidedly nerdy clique had duel booted Linux on them and have the school ChomeOS and Linux running concurrently. The Linux partition allows them to install games (like Minecraft) and so forth while they can use a key toggle to go back to the Chromebook side. Kids familiar with Linux are more inclined to become Mac users than PC users in my opinion. Both my sons own PC's and while they love gaming on them, they regularly loath having to deal with Windows and the problems there. I guess I'd call it a toss up but it does seem like Apple might be the path of most future resistance. We are talking about kids who use loads of Google services. They use a Linux OS to be able to circumvent the school restrictions on the Chromebooks but otherwise enjoy the machines themselves well enough. They own PC laptops but are ambivalent at best to Windows. They've all been issued Chromebooks so the only thing they aren't guaranteed to be touching at this point is Apple items. My sons both own iPhones because I pass mine down. Also my sons all buy their games through Steam. I know Steam is also on Linux and on Mac.
When given their choice of laptop they chose PC for gaming. So have all their peers. Windows hasn't left a great taste in their mouth though. Their future decisions will probably involve something that uses Google services well, lets them configure as they want without virus concerns and that lets them use Steam as well. That might be Apple but it also might be Windows 10 improved or a Steam type machine or whatever Google does with merging Chrome and Android.
"These are probably going for $200-$350 per unit. They are in the same range as lower end iPads."
That right there is the biggest reason schools are adopting Chromebooks. If given the choice, how many students would actually choose a Chromebook over an iPad Air 2 / iPad Pro?
I suspect the majority would choose Chromebooks. This becomes especially true when talking about ability to easily add storage to a tablet/laptop/hybrid. I think Apple really has missed the boat here. My Macbook Pro has an SD slot. So do the Macbook Air but the iPads and Macbook, which are clearly the future direction, do not. On a phone this becomes a bit easier to sell but not on a laptop or hybrid laptop/tablet. While at 45 years old, my time is money to the point where Apple is the only choice I'll endorse. My son however asks for a Kingston Digital 64 GB microSD off Amazon for $20 and creates a whole second drive on this Chromebook that can do whatever he wants.
However even for me as an analog, I've given up on AppleTV. I have two little Fire TV Sticks that I use for everything now. We subscribe to Prime and Netflix. This article probably sums it up better than I can.
In short I didn't wait for the Apple solution in terms of upgraded AppleTV. I mean the wait was years. My Fire TV sticks were a $20 sale item but are normally $40-50. If I wanted to go in the Apple direction Amazon has a Fire TV Gaming edition with included game controller and MicroSD slot. I'm probably not that heavy of a user but those that will seek that are also going to look at all the $300 dedicated gaming bundles this holiday season as well. (PS4, XB1, etc.) Apple seems stuck in the middle with TV.