I'm not too sure about that ... don't forget it was years before IBM even figured out the true value of the home PC market and since Gates had already figured out that software was more valuable than hardware and since Apple wasn't going to buy windows ..... he would have found somebody, I'm sure.
gates was peddling basic and whatever else they could peddle. an OS wasnt the focus (if my memory is working) and it really just became a case of ibm wanting cpm and cpm being brain dead f'd it up so bill jumped all over it with his 'os'. ibm was kicking a$$ with dos pc's vs apple II cuz ibm was fer real men at work and apple II was a toy. :-^)
don't forget it was years before IBM even figured out the true value of the home PC market and since Gates had already figured out that software was more valuable than hardware
I wonder how long it will take Microsoft to figure out the true value of the tablet market, then develop a WinPhone7-based tablet OS? After all, the software's more valuable than the hardware.
Just like with the cellphone OS, if MS builds the tablet OS, the hardware makers will come.
With less than a full year of iPad sales behind them I think it's premature to say it's a mature market. In 3 to 5 years maybe, but that still leaves a lot of time for various competitors to get into the mix. I don't think anyone is going to catch Apple anytime soon, if ever. .... just my 2¢
gates was peddling basic and whatever else they could peddle. an OS wasnt the focus (if my memory is working) and it really just became a case of ibm wanting cpm and cpm being brain dead f'd it up so bill jumped all over it with his 'os'. ibm was kicking a$$ with dos pc's vs apple II cuz ibm was fer real men at work and apple II was a toy. :-^)
More or less correct. Microsoft is an accident of history that is unlikely to be repeated.
I think what we're watching here is the unfolding of two different business models. MSFT, led by Ballmer, who has all the attributes of an old time "salesman" ... a pitchman, for lack of a better name, who wants to, as most salesman dream of doing, sell something to everyone, usually without giving much thought to the bottom line or to tomorrow's "sales". The unfortunate thing is, that the windows customer base is so large .... it generates profits almost automatically and allows that model to happen and for management to become more easily satisfied, for now at least. By the time management wakes up and starts to choose their focus points more clearly, it may be difficult to change.
Apple, otoh, has a plan in place that is slowly revealing itself to us, one step at a time. The amount of focus on Apple's part is becoming clearer everyday and is amazing to see..
Well said, couldn't have expressed it better myself. This is exactly why it amuses me so much when people use the "it's just a big ipod touch" argument against the iPad. It's all right on front of them, but they just don't see that's the whole point. As if the ipod touch or the iPhone revealed itself to Apple out of nowhere. The whole iOS ecosystem and the devices based on it have all been planned years before even the first iPhone was announced, and apple now seems to be executing this long-term strategy with almost military precision. Nothing like msft.
gates was peddling basic and whatever else they could peddle. an OS wasnt the focus (if my memory is working) and it really just became a case of ibm wanting cpm and cpm being brain dead f'd it up so bill jumped all over it with his 'os'. ibm was kicking a$$ with dos pc's vs apple II cuz ibm was fer real men at work and apple II was a toy. :-^)
We're basically on the same page ... you're right about basic being first but the point I'm trying to make is that his focus was software ... and once he was exposed to the GUI that Apple was working on .... windows was developed and at that point with, or without IBM I'm sure Gates would have found a way to sell his OS. In any case the whole deal was beneficial to both IBM and MSF.
We're basically on the same page ... you're right about basic being first but the point I'm trying to make is that his focus was software ... and once he was exposed to the GUI that Apple was working on .... windows was developed and at that point with, or without IBM I'm sure Gates would have found a way to sell his OS. In any case the whole deal was beneficial to both IBM and MSF.
yes, agree. that is the big difference between bill and steve. bill was more software programmer/nerd with an eye for opportunity and steve was more 'this is a great product, we should sell it.' (as in he knows a good thing when he sees it.
Well said, couldn't have expressed it better myself. This is exactly why it amuses me so much when people use the "it's just a big ipod touch" argument against the iPad. It's all right on front of them, but they just don't see that's the whole point. As if the ipod touch or the iPhone revealed itself to Apple out of nowhere. The whole iOS ecosystem and the devices based on it have all been planned years before even the first iPhone was announced, and apple now seems to be executing this long-term strategy with almost military precision. Nothing like msft.
What's really interesting is how some of these things come about. In an interview (I think with Walt Mossberg) Steve was telling him that Apple was working on the iPad first but when one of his engineers showed him what he had come up with re: touch interface .... they put the iPad on the back burner and started on the iPhone first.
We're basically on the same page ... you're right about basic being first but the point I'm trying to make is that his focus was software ... and once he was exposed to the GUI that Apple was working on .... windows was developed and at that point with, or without IBM I'm sure Gates would have found a way to sell his OS. In any case the whole deal was beneficial to both IBM and MSF.
MSFT was selling BASIC and some hardware peripherals. When IBM came calling, MSFT didn't have an OS (but they knew of one that could be bought cheaply).
So I read a lot about iPads replacing laptops and all, but I don't understand one aspect of that. I think my iPad is a great device and plan to get more (for the kids), but I'm still required to have a computer to sync it with through iTunes. How else would you update the OS or firmware, or back it up, etc? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me, the iPad will always be "add-on" device, not a replacement. Am I missing something?
Not bad for a device being nether a Notebook nor a iPod touch and that isn't ever going to be useful to anybody.
After getting and using my iPhone 3GS shortly after release, I could not see a market for the soon to be released iPad. To my thinking, it seemed to be little more than a large iPod.
But after checking one out at the Apple Store, I could no longer stand to use the cramped iPhone.
I now have 2 ipads one of which I bought for my wife, who was previously computer phobic but now uses her iPad for EMail every day.
It's a damn good thing I don't make a living as a Product Marketing guy.
It's funny how he called the iPad " the Mac of the Masses" because many Mac owners want simplicity and use their macs for email, web browsing and Skyping. This isn't an insult btw. I own a Mac Mini myself and really like the OS UI and the sleek apps developers make for them.
So I read a lot about iPads replacing laptops and all, but I don't understand one aspect of that. I think my iPad is a great device and plan to get more (for the kids), but I'm still required to have a computer to sync it with through iTunes. How else would you update the OS or firmware, or back it up, etc? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me, the iPad will always be "add-on" device, not a replacement. Am I missing something?
We live in a society where individuals and families often have multiple computers. Quite often, the iPad can replace at least one of them.
So I read a lot about iPads replacing laptops and all, but I don't understand one aspect of that. I think my iPad is a great device and plan to get more (for the kids), but I'm still required to have a computer to sync it with through iTunes. How else would you update the OS or firmware, or back it up, etc? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me, the iPad will always be "add-on" device, not a replacement. Am I missing something?
With the MobileMe overload disaster, Apple learned the lesson: Don't change everything at once -- roll out smaller, digestible changes over time.
A lot of stuff had to happen to get the iPad out the door with a successful launch. They had an established process (iTunes install, activate, backup and sync) in place. Why risk the iPad launch by putting an untested process in place.
Now, Apple can take their time to build a process that does not require (but can take advantage of) another computer to support an iPad.
I suspect we will see that process put in place after the holidays, and after the new server farm is operational.
There. likely, will be other shoes dropped when some organizations, industries or groups announce massive acceptance of the iPad -- talking tens or hundreds of thousands at a pop, here.
Having said all that, the current requirement only matters to those who don't own, or have access to a computer. It will become a problem if Apple wants to expand into [computer] virgin territory.
After getting and using my iPhone 3GS shortly after release, I could not see a market for the soon to be released iPad. To my thinking, it seemed to be little more than a large iPod.
But after checking one out at the Apple Store, I could no longer stand to use the cramped iPhone.
I now have 2 ipads one of which I bought for my wife, who was previously computer phobic but now uses her iPad for EMail .every day.
It's a damn good thing I don't make a living as a Product Marketing guy.
It's a good decision to have two iPads. The whole idea that an iPad could be shared among the whole family breaks kind of down after the first one or two weeks of usage. You just don't want to stand in cues to get access to a divice like the iPad. I will have to wait for our second iPad until spring. I hope the iPad 2 will be out by then
That HP slate video was pretty sad. It's a product of compromises. It has a keyboard button because the keyboard exists in a layer above the OS- Windows has a very poor software keyboard, so they had to fake a hardware keyboard. And it must be running very slow hardware (Atom), in the name of battery life, but that makes everything sluggish. And the ctrl-alt-del button's function is obvious
I'm sure there is demand for such a device, but not if it performs poorly.
Comments
I'm not too sure about that ... don't forget it was years before IBM even figured out the true value of the home PC market and since Gates had already figured out that software was more valuable than hardware and since Apple wasn't going to buy windows ..... he would have found somebody, I'm sure.
gates was peddling basic and whatever else they could peddle. an OS wasnt the focus (if my memory is working) and it really just became a case of ibm wanting cpm and cpm being brain dead f'd it up so bill jumped all over it with his 'os'. ibm was kicking a$$ with dos pc's vs apple II cuz ibm was fer real men at work and apple II was a toy. :-^)
don't forget it was years before IBM even figured out the true value of the home PC market and since Gates had already figured out that software was more valuable than hardware
I wonder how long it will take Microsoft to figure out the true value of the tablet market, then develop a WinPhone7-based tablet OS? After all, the software's more valuable than the hardware.
Just like with the cellphone OS, if MS builds the tablet OS, the hardware makers will come.
This is a mature market .....
With less than a full year of iPad sales behind them I think it's premature to say it's a mature market. In 3 to 5 years maybe, but that still leaves a lot of time for various competitors to get into the mix. I don't think anyone is going to catch Apple anytime soon, if ever. .... just my 2¢
gates was peddling basic and whatever else they could peddle. an OS wasnt the focus (if my memory is working) and it really just became a case of ibm wanting cpm and cpm being brain dead f'd it up so bill jumped all over it with his 'os'. ibm was kicking a$$ with dos pc's vs apple II cuz ibm was fer real men at work and apple II was a toy. :-^)
More or less correct. Microsoft is an accident of history that is unlikely to be repeated.
I think what we're watching here is the unfolding of two different business models. MSFT, led by Ballmer, who has all the attributes of an old time "salesman" ... a pitchman, for lack of a better name, who wants to, as most salesman dream of doing, sell something to everyone, usually without giving much thought to the bottom line or to tomorrow's "sales". The unfortunate thing is, that the windows customer base is so large .... it generates profits almost automatically and allows that model to happen and for management to become more easily satisfied, for now at least. By the time management wakes up and starts to choose their focus points more clearly, it may be difficult to change.
Apple, otoh, has a plan in place that is slowly revealing itself to us, one step at a time. The amount of focus on Apple's part is becoming clearer everyday and is amazing to see..
Well said, couldn't have expressed it better myself. This is exactly why it amuses me so much when people use the "it's just a big ipod touch" argument against the iPad. It's all right on front of them, but they just don't see that's the whole point. As if the ipod touch or the iPhone revealed itself to Apple out of nowhere. The whole iOS ecosystem and the devices based on it have all been planned years before even the first iPhone was announced, and apple now seems to be executing this long-term strategy with almost military precision. Nothing like msft.
gates was peddling basic and whatever else they could peddle. an OS wasnt the focus (if my memory is working) and it really just became a case of ibm wanting cpm and cpm being brain dead f'd it up so bill jumped all over it with his 'os'. ibm was kicking a$$ with dos pc's vs apple II cuz ibm was fer real men at work and apple II was a toy. :-^)
We're basically on the same page ... you're right about basic being first but the point I'm trying to make is that his focus was software ... and once he was exposed to the GUI that Apple was working on .... windows was developed and at that point with, or without IBM I'm sure Gates would have found a way to sell his OS. In any case the whole deal was beneficial to both IBM and MSF.
We're basically on the same page ... you're right about basic being first but the point I'm trying to make is that his focus was software ... and once he was exposed to the GUI that Apple was working on .... windows was developed and at that point with, or without IBM I'm sure Gates would have found a way to sell his OS. In any case the whole deal was beneficial to both IBM and MSF.
yes, agree. that is the big difference between bill and steve. bill was more software programmer/nerd with an eye for opportunity and steve was more 'this is a great product, we should sell it.' (as in he knows a good thing when he sees it.
Well said, couldn't have expressed it better myself. This is exactly why it amuses me so much when people use the "it's just a big ipod touch" argument against the iPad. It's all right on front of them, but they just don't see that's the whole point. As if the ipod touch or the iPhone revealed itself to Apple out of nowhere. The whole iOS ecosystem and the devices based on it have all been planned years before even the first iPhone was announced, and apple now seems to be executing this long-term strategy with almost military precision. Nothing like msft.
What's really interesting is how some of these things come about. In an interview (I think with Walt Mossberg) Steve was telling him that Apple was working on the iPad first but when one of his engineers showed him what he had come up with re: touch interface .... they put the iPad on the back burner and started on the iPhone first.
Psst.....
Wanna' see somethin'?
As of this AM, there are 702 iPad medical apps in the app store.
That's 59 pages, of 12 apps each, of medical iPad apps.
I made a collage of pictures of the iPad App Store pages.
It's too big to paste here.
I saved it in PDF format.
If you have a browser (like the iPad's) you can pan/zoom and see the listings in detail.
You can see it on my MobileMe at:
http://web.me.com/dicklacara/ForWeb/MedApps.pdf
It takes a while to load!
That's what a tablet ecosystem looks like for the medical profession!
I guess those doctors will just have to give up their deep pockets -- and just get bigger pockets!
.
We're basically on the same page ... you're right about basic being first but the point I'm trying to make is that his focus was software ... and once he was exposed to the GUI that Apple was working on .... windows was developed and at that point with, or without IBM I'm sure Gates would have found a way to sell his OS. In any case the whole deal was beneficial to both IBM and MSF.
MSFT was selling BASIC and some hardware peripherals. When IBM came calling, MSFT didn't have an OS (but they knew of one that could be bought cheaply).
MSFT finessed IBM, give them credit for that!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS
.
Not bad for a device being nether a Notebook nor a iPod touch and that isn't ever going to be useful to anybody.
After getting and using my iPhone 3GS shortly after release, I could not see a market for the soon to be released iPad. To my thinking, it seemed to be little more than a large iPod.
But after checking one out at the Apple Store, I could no longer stand to use the cramped iPhone.
I now have 2 ipads one of which I bought for my wife, who was previously computer phobic but now uses her iPad for EMail every day.
It's a damn good thing I don't make a living as a Product Marketing guy.
So I read a lot about iPads replacing laptops and all, but I don't understand one aspect of that. I think my iPad is a great device and plan to get more (for the kids), but I'm still required to have a computer to sync it with through iTunes. How else would you update the OS or firmware, or back it up, etc? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me, the iPad will always be "add-on" device, not a replacement. Am I missing something?
We live in a society where individuals and families often have multiple computers. Quite often, the iPad can replace at least one of them.
So I read a lot about iPads replacing laptops and all, but I don't understand one aspect of that. I think my iPad is a great device and plan to get more (for the kids), but I'm still required to have a computer to sync it with through iTunes. How else would you update the OS or firmware, or back it up, etc? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me, the iPad will always be "add-on" device, not a replacement. Am I missing something?
With the MobileMe overload disaster, Apple learned the lesson: Don't change everything at once -- roll out smaller, digestible changes over time.
A lot of stuff had to happen to get the iPad out the door with a successful launch. They had an established process (iTunes install, activate, backup and sync) in place. Why risk the iPad launch by putting an untested process in place.
Now, Apple can take their time to build a process that does not require (but can take advantage of) another computer to support an iPad.
I suspect we will see that process put in place after the holidays, and after the new server farm is operational.
There. likely, will be other shoes dropped when some organizations, industries or groups announce massive acceptance of the iPad -- talking tens or hundreds of thousands at a pop, here.
Having said all that, the current requirement only matters to those who don't own, or have access to a computer. It will become a problem if Apple wants to expand into [computer] virgin territory.
.
.
That's what a tablet ecosystem looks like for the medical profession!
I guess those doctors will just have to give up their deep pockets -- and just get bigger pockets!
.
Psst... and they're just getting started!
After getting and using my iPhone 3GS shortly after release, I could not see a market for the soon to be released iPad. To my thinking, it seemed to be little more than a large iPod.
But after checking one out at the Apple Store, I could no longer stand to use the cramped iPhone.
I now have 2 ipads one of which I bought for my wife, who was previously computer phobic but now uses her iPad for EMail .every day.
It's a damn good thing I don't make a living as a Product Marketing guy.
It's a good decision to have two iPads. The whole idea that an iPad could be shared among the whole family breaks kind of down after the first one or two weeks of usage. You just don't want to stand in cues to get access to a divice like the iPad. I will have to wait for our second iPad until spring. I hope the iPad 2 will be out by then
.
Psst.....
Wanna' see somethin'?
guess those doctors will just have to give up their deep pockets -- and just get bigger pockets!
.
They could produce labcoats with velcro stripes.
I'm sure there is demand for such a device, but not if it performs poorly.
They could produce labcoats with velcro stripes.
Well... shit, oh dear!
.