You were expecting unicorns and free pony's, no doubt. Care to define what "innovative" means to you?
Something we haven't seen before. Or maybe to be more precise, something nobody has thought of before. Or maybe, something that nobody has implemented before.
And its not black/white, but rather, a spectrum. We haven't seen a tablet running a telephone OS before, that is true.
Edit: Now that I think about it, Archos long ago released tablets running Android, so I take back the bone I threw out above.
The iPad is ground breaking but people's expectations were too high. But I'd wager that the really groundbreaking thing is not as much the iPad itself, but the way it will change the way we interact with the web.
)
By groundbreaking, you must mean there is something clever about taking an iPod Touch and making it comically huge. Or by making an eReader with a US exclusive book store, and a screen so bright it will cause headaches within minutes. There are good reasons why every other ebook reader uses e-ink.
And I don't think there is really anything groundbreaking about looking at a whole load of 'missing flash' blue lego brick icons when browsing the web. Maybe if HTML 5 takes off 3-5 years down the line then it will be fine, but right now the iPad is a seriously broken web browser.
Apple could have done so much with a tablet, but the took the easiest, cheapest, least inspiring route. Quite how Jobs was happy with it boggles the mind.
iPad is a dud. Sorry, I wanted it to be good too. I just hope Apple come up with the good for the next iPhone revision.
By groundbreaking, you must mean there is something clever about taking an iPod Touch and making it comically huge. Or by making an eReader with a US exclusive book store, and a screen so bright it will cause headaches within minutes. There are good reasons why every other ebook reader uses e-ink.
Who said screen brightness can't be adjusted? If the screen is set too bright, that's the user's own damn fault for not dialing it where they like it.
A lot of digital media stores focus on one region first, before expanding it. I know it's frustrating, but there are valid reasons behind it. Amazon and Sony took some time before expanding the reach of their book stores.
Quote:
Apple could have done so much with a tablet, but the took the easiest, cheapest, least inspiring route. Quite how Jobs was happy with it boggles the mind.
An IPS panel and aluminum back panel says they didn't take the cheapest route. Almost all portable devices, including Apple's portable devices, use cheaper TN displays. Plastic is the most prevalent material for device shells, in part because it's very inexpensive.
What would you want that you would call inspiring? I am curious here. Maybe I'm jaded, but I don't remember thinking any electronic gadget is inspiring.
Quote:
iPad is a dud. Sorry, I wanted it to be good too. I just hope Apple come up with the good for the next iPhone revision.
I don't think it's smart to declare an Apple product a dud until it actually is sold. How many people declared the iPod a dud? iPhone? It would seem people should take a cue from history and wait it out first. I'd hate to be the one with my foot in my mouth for calling it wrong, I'd rather just stand back and see how it goes.
By groundbreaking, you must mean there is something clever about taking an iPod Touch and making it comically huge. Or by making an eReader with a US exclusive book store, and a screen so bright it will cause headaches within minutes. There are good reasons why every other ebook reader uses e-ink.
The e-Reader is US only at launch. Do you honestly think other bookstores won't be in place in almost no time at all? The App Store was US only at launch, too. The iTunes music store is still limited to only a few countries scattered around the world. The screen brightness can be turned down. Duh.
Quote:
And I don't think there is really anything groundbreaking about looking at a whole load of 'missing flash' blue lego brick icons when browsing the web. Maybe if HTML 5 takes off 3-5 years down the line then it will be fine, but right now the iPad is a seriously broken web browser.
I use FlashBlock for FireFox and is a way better browsing experience with it on, showing all those "F" circles, than with it off, showing all those ads and slow animation effects. And you can bet websites will be redesigned to use fewer and fewer of those lego instances.
You got the businessperson part wrong. He's a ruthless businessperson, is sheep's clothing.
Fair enough. I guess it all depends on how your define 'successful businessperson'. If you define it as the ability to crush and destroy all competition - i agree with you. If you define as the use of business to make the world a better place (which is my definition), then -> enh, hard call.
I will go with the idea of changing my comment from: "... never businessperson..." to "... ruthless businessperson..."
I think how successful the iPad will be will depend a lot in what kind of applications developers dream up. Personally, I think it's on the big side and wish it were a little smaller. But if Apple came out with a version of Aperture for the iPad that let me load my photos in the field, review/edit/arrange them on the iPad, and then sync the whole project back to my desktop, then I'd say with a high degree of certainty that I'd get one.
Short of that I'd probably just stick with an iPod touch because it's more portable (while wishing it was a little bigger... got that Apple, I'd like something between the touch and the iPad )
I'm exactly with you on this. I love my Touch and just wish it was as big as a jumbo GPS. That's all I want.
Bill Gates authored MS-Basic if I recall correctly. Then, when IBM wanted his Basic for the new IBM PC he sold them DOS (as IBM needed an OS as well, but Gary Kildall of CP/M from DR was being extremely arrogant). Gates has QDOS from SCP in house because they needed some sort of OS to use while porting MS-Basic to the new system. He then bought QDOS (which was inspired by CP/M) and sold it on to IBM. When he bought QDOS from Paterson he paid something like M$500. Later SCP (Paterson's company) sued Microsoft for lying about the potential revenues for MS-DOS. This was settled out of court for the rumored amount of M$900.
I addressed some of this in an earlier post. AFAIK, Gates had nothing directly to do with coding anything after he and Paul Allen camped out in motel room in Albuquerque and wrote the basis interpreter for MITS -- and Allen did most of the work on that. This was in 1974 I think. Allen actually ended up working for MITS after that.
The story about IBM and Gary Kildall has been told and retold a million times in nearly as many different ways. Kildall could not have been "extremely arrogant" with IBM when they came calling at DR, because he wasn't there. His wife was. The IBM reps insisted on her signing a NDA before they would even tell her why they were there, which with Gary not in the office, she would not do. So IBM went calling on Microsoft. Nothing to do with porting Basic to the PC to my knowledge, and I don't see how it could, since at the time IBM had no OS for the PC. Gates & Co. promised to deliver DOS to IBM in about a year, although they really had no idea how they were going to do it.
I believe Microsoft first had a license from Seattle Computing for QDOS, which later turned into an outright purchase. The price as I said earlier was $50,000. Seattle Computing did sue Microsoft and ended up with a $1m settlement. Paterson worked for Microsoft and became a millionaire many times over. He now races cars, or something like that.
They'll make money. There will be paid MS Office apps for the iPad, you can bet on it. They'll also get license fees on certain patents as well as advertising revenue from iPad-related internet activities. MS has its fingers in lots of pies.
They'll make money. There will be paid MS Office apps for the iPad, you can bet on it.
that will be a really big test. can MS re-design Office for touch UI and do a really good job of it? like Apple very possibly has done with iWorks? so far they have not been able to do this - WinMo.
once the dam of "you must have Office" breaks somehow, there will be a flood of alternative office suites into the market and popular use. because of course MS charges outrageous prices for Office. (it was file compatibility that made Office the standard in the 90's, but that doesn't matter any more now that all brands can convert files into any format.)
I find it hypocritical that a marketing guy that never really invented anything except DOS says "no biggie" to something he doesn't really know anything about.
Bill Gates knows innovation like Donald Trump knows how to mop his floor.
Actually, DOS (which was called QDOS for Quick and Dirty Operating System) was developed by Seattle Softworks and stolen by Bill Gates who argued in court that his license gave him an unmentioned right to redistribute (Bill had some powerful attorneys behind him). They eventually settled and, in exchange for a large sum of money, the owner of Seattle Softworks agreed never to discuss the particulars of the case.
Much like J. P. Morgan, Bill Gates had powerful people behind him from day 1, but where J. P. Morgan was really simply a front man for Rothschild bank; The bank behind Bill has always been the Bank of London.
Actually, DOS (which was called QDOS for Quick and Dirty Operating System) was developed by Seattle Softworks and stolen by Bill Gates who argued in court that his license gave him an unmentioned right to redistribute (Bill had some powerful attorneys behind him). They eventually settled and, in exchange for a large sum of money, the owner of Seattle Softworks agreed never to discuss the particulars of the case.
Much like J. P. Morgan, Bill Gates had powerful people behind him from day 1, but where J. P. Morgan was really simply a front man for Rothschild bank; The bank behind Bill has always been the Bank of London.
This is mostly incorrect, but since the real story has already been posted here...
People who think SJ is a 'marketing guy' misunderstand him completely. SJ is a 'user experience guy' and has often done things that fly in the face of marketing wisdom (with hits (iMac w/o floppy, expensive iPhone) and misses (NeXT restricted to higher ed, G4 Cube). And next to being 'user experience' driven he is also a 'sales guy'. But his effectiveness at selling an idea/solution is hard to separate from its basis in 'user experience' which by and large also sells itself. You can see SJ making marketing mistakes, but even his market failures have been user experience triumphs (the NeXT was decennia ahead of the competition in user experience).
Gates is a rather basic nerd who is also a great marketing strategist. The success of Microsoft has been documented perfectly by him in his book "The Road Ahead", where you can read how marketing and strategy is what made Microsoft great. He has no feeling for user experience (what SJ calls a lack of 'taste' on Microsoft's side) and no true understanding of the limits of technology in that respect (think about the billions Microsoft spent on AI-like programs which brought nothing). In Microsoft's defense, innovating when you depend so much on OEM's is difficult, it is part of their position that true innovations in user experience are very difficult. Still, I think SJ has a far better feel for technology than BG, who has always impressed me as being a truly exceptional strategist while being a mediocre technologist.
Many pundits complain about technical iPad details, like the lack of a camera, or the wide bezel which they think is ugly. The wide bezel is however important for the user experience of holding the device in one hand and working it with another. And the camera in the top of the bezel would not be a perfect user experience (front facing, it would mean you are being displayed in a unflattering angle and if you turn the device your hand might be in the way, back facing it would be a rather unwieldy camera to handle). I expect different future solutions for the camera option (e.g. a front facing camera 'behind' the middle of the screen).
The iPad, as a first in a new category has many compromises in its design for the multiple aspects of user experience (e.g. battery life versus unlimited background apps). The question is not if there are compromises (there are) but if the end result offers a great user experience for enough types of users. From what I have seen, I think it will.
Excellent post! Seldom do we such succinct and accurate analysis.
They'll make money. There will be paid MS Office apps for the iPad, you can bet on it. They'll also get license fees on certain patents as well as advertising revenue from iPad-related internet activities. MS has its fingers in lots of pies.
This machine really isnt for corprate otherwise you would get a stylus. If they do get exchange then that could make a difference. If the Courier is real and not vapor and is msft only and not oem, then this would have a Aegean impact.
You do know Steve Jobs never developed, engineered, or designed anything right? Is he a hypocrite too for saying something isn't up to snuff?
At least Gates actually designed, engineered, developed, SOMETHING!
Gates didn't develop DOS - that was Seattle Computer Systems - all Gates did was buy their QDOS (Quick and Dirty OS) for $50,000 to fool IBM he had something. The last 30 years of inanity in this industry result from that deal (the previous 50 years of inanity were due to IBM).
Comments
You were expecting unicorns and free pony's, no doubt. Care to define what "innovative" means to you?
Something we haven't seen before. Or maybe to be more precise, something nobody has thought of before. Or maybe, something that nobody has implemented before.
And its not black/white, but rather, a spectrum. We haven't seen a tablet running a telephone OS before, that is true.
Edit: Now that I think about it, Archos long ago released tablets running Android, so I take back the bone I threw out above.
So the iPad is just a bigger iPod Touch? And that's a bad thing?
Is the 17" MBP just a bigger 13" MBP? And is that a bad thing too?
A bigger iTouch is a diasapointment because folks expected a more capable device.
A 17 inch MBP would be a disappointment if folks expected a whole new line of laptops, and instead got more of the same in a bigger size.
It will probably work well.
What other tablets are less expensive than the iPad? The Archos 9 is a POS, and costs more.
As of now, there are no tablets that I would consider buying. But I think great things are going to happen...real soon now...
The iPad is ground breaking but people's expectations were too high. But I'd wager that the really groundbreaking thing is not as much the iPad itself, but the way it will change the way we interact with the web.
)
By groundbreaking, you must mean there is something clever about taking an iPod Touch and making it comically huge. Or by making an eReader with a US exclusive book store, and a screen so bright it will cause headaches within minutes. There are good reasons why every other ebook reader uses e-ink.
And I don't think there is really anything groundbreaking about looking at a whole load of 'missing flash' blue lego brick icons when browsing the web. Maybe if HTML 5 takes off 3-5 years down the line then it will be fine, but right now the iPad is a seriously broken web browser.
Apple could have done so much with a tablet, but the took the easiest, cheapest, least inspiring route. Quite how Jobs was happy with it boggles the mind.
iPad is a dud. Sorry, I wanted it to be good too. I just hope Apple come up with the good for the next iPhone revision.
By groundbreaking, you must mean there is something clever about taking an iPod Touch and making it comically huge. Or by making an eReader with a US exclusive book store, and a screen so bright it will cause headaches within minutes. There are good reasons why every other ebook reader uses e-ink.
Who said screen brightness can't be adjusted? If the screen is set too bright, that's the user's own damn fault for not dialing it where they like it.
A lot of digital media stores focus on one region first, before expanding it. I know it's frustrating, but there are valid reasons behind it. Amazon and Sony took some time before expanding the reach of their book stores.
Apple could have done so much with a tablet, but the took the easiest, cheapest, least inspiring route. Quite how Jobs was happy with it boggles the mind.
An IPS panel and aluminum back panel says they didn't take the cheapest route. Almost all portable devices, including Apple's portable devices, use cheaper TN displays. Plastic is the most prevalent material for device shells, in part because it's very inexpensive.
What would you want that you would call inspiring? I am curious here. Maybe I'm jaded, but I don't remember thinking any electronic gadget is inspiring.
iPad is a dud. Sorry, I wanted it to be good too. I just hope Apple come up with the good for the next iPhone revision.
I don't think it's smart to declare an Apple product a dud until it actually is sold. How many people declared the iPod a dud? iPhone? It would seem people should take a cue from history and wait it out first. I'd hate to be the one with my foot in my mouth for calling it wrong, I'd rather just stand back and see how it goes.
By groundbreaking, you must mean there is something clever about taking an iPod Touch and making it comically huge. Or by making an eReader with a US exclusive book store, and a screen so bright it will cause headaches within minutes. There are good reasons why every other ebook reader uses e-ink.
The e-Reader is US only at launch. Do you honestly think other bookstores won't be in place in almost no time at all? The App Store was US only at launch, too. The iTunes music store is still limited to only a few countries scattered around the world. The screen brightness can be turned down. Duh.
And I don't think there is really anything groundbreaking about looking at a whole load of 'missing flash' blue lego brick icons when browsing the web. Maybe if HTML 5 takes off 3-5 years down the line then it will be fine, but right now the iPad is a seriously broken web browser.
I use FlashBlock for FireFox and is a way better browsing experience with it on, showing all those "F" circles, than with it off, showing all those ads and slow animation effects. And you can bet websites will be redesigned to use fewer and fewer of those lego instances.
Apple could have done so much with a tablet...
What... like a Win 7 tablet?
The e-Reader is US only at launch.
This is quite an interesting point.
Book publishing rights vary from territory to territory.
Amazon sells the Kindle internationally. But only sells the American Kindle, with American books.
International customers have to buy it from the US store (in dollars.)
This makes me think that electronic book selling could be tougher than music.
C.
[CENTER]and...
What exactly does the iPad do that any number of other (more capable/versatile) 'devices' do far better at a much lower price point?
Exactly... Nothing! (at least at this point)[/CENTER]
Why do you centre align all you comments? It just looks stupid.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/11/ipa...twork-ibm.html
You got the businessperson part wrong. He's a ruthless businessperson, is sheep's clothing.
Fair enough. I guess it all depends on how your define 'successful businessperson'. If you define it as the ability to crush and destroy all competition - i agree with you. If you define as the use of business to make the world a better place (which is my definition), then -> enh, hard call.
I will go with the idea of changing my comment from: "... never businessperson..." to "... ruthless businessperson..."
I think how successful the iPad will be will depend a lot in what kind of applications developers dream up. Personally, I think it's on the big side and wish it were a little smaller. But if Apple came out with a version of Aperture for the iPad that let me load my photos in the field, review/edit/arrange them on the iPad, and then sync the whole project back to my desktop, then I'd say with a high degree of certainty that I'd get one.
Short of that I'd probably just stick with an iPod touch because it's more portable (while wishing it was a little bigger... got that Apple, I'd like something between the touch and the iPad
I'm exactly with you on this. I love my Touch and just wish it was as big as a jumbo GPS. That's all I want.
Bill Gates authored MS-Basic if I recall correctly. Then, when IBM wanted his Basic for the new IBM PC he sold them DOS (as IBM needed an OS as well, but Gary Kildall of CP/M from DR was being extremely arrogant). Gates has QDOS from SCP in house because they needed some sort of OS to use while porting MS-Basic to the new system. He then bought QDOS (which was inspired by CP/M) and sold it on to IBM. When he bought QDOS from Paterson he paid something like M$500. Later SCP (Paterson's company) sued Microsoft for lying about the potential revenues for MS-DOS. This was settled out of court for the rumored amount of M$900.
I addressed some of this in an earlier post. AFAIK, Gates had nothing directly to do with coding anything after he and Paul Allen camped out in motel room in Albuquerque and wrote the basis interpreter for MITS -- and Allen did most of the work on that. This was in 1974 I think. Allen actually ended up working for MITS after that.
The story about IBM and Gary Kildall has been told and retold a million times in nearly as many different ways. Kildall could not have been "extremely arrogant" with IBM when they came calling at DR, because he wasn't there. His wife was. The IBM reps insisted on her signing a NDA before they would even tell her why they were there, which with Gary not in the office, she would not do. So IBM went calling on Microsoft. Nothing to do with porting Basic to the PC to my knowledge, and I don't see how it could, since at the time IBM had no OS for the PC. Gates & Co. promised to deliver DOS to IBM in about a year, although they really had no idea how they were going to do it.
I believe Microsoft first had a license from Seattle Computing for QDOS, which later turned into an outright purchase. The price as I said earlier was $50,000. Seattle Computing did sue Microsoft and ended up with a $1m settlement. Paterson worked for Microsoft and became a millionaire many times over. He now races cars, or something like that.
Poor Bill, can't make any gash! What a mofo
They'll make money. There will be paid MS Office apps for the iPad, you can bet on it. They'll also get license fees on certain patents as well as advertising revenue from iPad-related internet activities. MS has its fingers in lots of pies.
They'll make money. There will be paid MS Office apps for the iPad, you can bet on it.
that will be a really big test. can MS re-design Office for touch UI and do a really good job of it? like Apple very possibly has done with iWorks? so far they have not been able to do this - WinMo.
once the dam of "you must have Office" breaks somehow, there will be a flood of alternative office suites into the market and popular use. because of course MS charges outrageous prices for Office. (it was file compatibility that made Office the standard in the 90's, but that doesn't matter any more now that all brands can convert files into any format.)
I find it hypocritical that a marketing guy that never really invented anything except DOS says "no biggie" to something he doesn't really know anything about.
Bill Gates knows innovation like Donald Trump knows how to mop his floor.
Actually, DOS (which was called QDOS for Quick and Dirty Operating System) was developed by Seattle Softworks and stolen by Bill Gates who argued in court that his license gave him an unmentioned right to redistribute (Bill had some powerful attorneys behind him). They eventually settled and, in exchange for a large sum of money, the owner of Seattle Softworks agreed never to discuss the particulars of the case.
Much like J. P. Morgan, Bill Gates had powerful people behind him from day 1, but where J. P. Morgan was really simply a front man for Rothschild bank; The bank behind Bill has always been the Bank of London.
Actually, DOS (which was called QDOS for Quick and Dirty Operating System) was developed by Seattle Softworks and stolen by Bill Gates who argued in court that his license gave him an unmentioned right to redistribute (Bill had some powerful attorneys behind him). They eventually settled and, in exchange for a large sum of money, the owner of Seattle Softworks agreed never to discuss the particulars of the case.
Much like J. P. Morgan, Bill Gates had powerful people behind him from day 1, but where J. P. Morgan was really simply a front man for Rothschild bank; The bank behind Bill has always been the Bank of London.
This is mostly incorrect, but since the real story has already been posted here...
People who think SJ is a 'marketing guy' misunderstand him completely. SJ is a 'user experience guy' and has often done things that fly in the face of marketing wisdom (with hits (iMac w/o floppy, expensive iPhone) and misses (NeXT restricted to higher ed, G4 Cube). And next to being 'user experience' driven he is also a 'sales guy'. But his effectiveness at selling an idea/solution is hard to separate from its basis in 'user experience' which by and large also sells itself. You can see SJ making marketing mistakes, but even his market failures have been user experience triumphs (the NeXT was decennia ahead of the competition in user experience).
Gates is a rather basic nerd who is also a great marketing strategist. The success of Microsoft has been documented perfectly by him in his book "The Road Ahead", where you can read how marketing and strategy is what made Microsoft great. He has no feeling for user experience (what SJ calls a lack of 'taste' on Microsoft's side) and no true understanding of the limits of technology in that respect (think about the billions Microsoft spent on AI-like programs which brought nothing). In Microsoft's defense, innovating when you depend so much on OEM's is difficult, it is part of their position that true innovations in user experience are very difficult. Still, I think SJ has a far better feel for technology than BG, who has always impressed me as being a truly exceptional strategist while being a mediocre technologist.
Many pundits complain about technical iPad details, like the lack of a camera, or the wide bezel which they think is ugly. The wide bezel is however important for the user experience of holding the device in one hand and working it with another. And the camera in the top of the bezel would not be a perfect user experience (front facing, it would mean you are being displayed in a unflattering angle and if you turn the device your hand might be in the way, back facing it would be a rather unwieldy camera to handle). I expect different future solutions for the camera option (e.g. a front facing camera 'behind' the middle of the screen).
The iPad, as a first in a new category has many compromises in its design for the multiple aspects of user experience (e.g. battery life versus unlimited background apps). The question is not if there are compromises (there are) but if the end result offers a great user experience for enough types of users. From what I have seen, I think it will.
Excellent post! Seldom do we such succinct and accurate analysis.
Welcome to AI!
They'll make money. There will be paid MS Office apps for the iPad, you can bet on it. They'll also get license fees on certain patents as well as advertising revenue from iPad-related internet activities. MS has its fingers in lots of pies.
This machine really isnt for corprate otherwise you would get a stylus. If they do get exchange then that could make a difference. If the Courier is real and not vapor and is msft only and not oem, then this would have a Aegean impact.
You do know Steve Jobs never developed, engineered, or designed anything right? Is he a hypocrite too for saying something isn't up to snuff?
At least Gates actually designed, engineered, developed, SOMETHING!
Gates didn't develop DOS - that was Seattle Computer Systems - all Gates did was buy their QDOS (Quick and Dirty OS) for $50,000 to fool IBM he had something. The last 30 years of inanity in this industry result from that deal (the previous 50 years of inanity were due to IBM).
http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Byte/History.html