Considering that Apple is the only company that is really doing anything particularly innovative, do you blame him?
I love that there's new competition out there for Apple. Consumers will benefit. My only gripe is, all of these "new" devices are just Apple product "knock-offs". Who really is doing something completely different. Apple rocked the mobile phone industry with the iPhone and now, the market is saturated with devices that are similar but not innovative. While everyone else was pushing netbooks, Apple came out with the iPad and now everyone and their dogs are trying to enter the tablet market. Look at the new laptops out there and you'll find so many that on first glance, "look" like the Macbook Pro.
As I said, I love the competition. However, I want to see some of these other companies introduce devices (not concepts) that actually change the way we do thing for the better. Lately, the only company that does is Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Most other companies aren't paranoid like Apple when it comes to releasing specs. Not saying that is good or bad just that Steve Jobs tends to be the only one that worries about stuff like that.
And Apple was able to sell that many iphones because carriers had to massively subsidize the iphone --- to the point that AT&T had to issue a profit margin warning.
AT&T never did buy an iPhone and get another for free nor did they give away iPhones for free.
I don't know if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not, but I'm not the one accusing anyone of fakery.
You dont, however, seem to get the difference between showing an actually running product ( albeit on a prototype machine), annoucing pricing, and release dates ( to the day) and releasing an SDK for it that very day, or soon after and just showing a video.
Thats the thing here. Just a video.
You seem confused by the fact that Apple also do videos. However they do this after they have demonstrated the product.
Most other companies aren't paranoid like Apple when it comes to releasing specs. Not saying that is good or bad just that Steve Jobs tends to be the only one that worries about stuff like that.
They were paranoid enough not to mention the processor or expected price point, which at these specs will cost more than the high end iPad.
Y'know one company that is paranoid about releasing specs? Bose. And when you think about it, the complaints about Bose are similar to the ones about Apple. Basically that they advertise to overcome an inferior technical product. Of course, the complaints are from people who worry about crossover frequencies....
Still, it's kind of a striking similarity I never thought about before.
You are right on that when it comes to Bose. Their product can be out for 10 years and you still have no clue on the specs.
... Is it good enough enough and soon enough to change any iPad buying decisions.
Will anyone accept a "good for one PlayBook" gift card in his Xmas stocking?
Will IT or enteprise delay their "tablet" deployment projects for this?
I think the answer is no to all of the above -- it's pretty hard to go wrong with a $500 bird in the hand.
Sent from my real, live bird!
.
This won't be taking sales from the iPad 2 (which will be out around the same time), but provided the product is as good as it appears, I suspect many BB owners will go for it. The tablet market looks ready to expand like the smartphone market has, and we'll all benefit.
I don't see that as being a big difference. Apple wanted to get the word on the street before other products launched and potentially stole their spotlight. They also wanted to get the SDK out to developers prior to launch. I don't see RIM's announcement as being that much different.
I don't see anything about the RIM SDK in this story. If there was, then you would have a stronger point about RIM's early announce being very similar to Apple's. But I think the guy who said that the fact that Steve had a working shipping version in his hands vs. a faked up concept is an important point.
Maybe it sounds better to the North American audience, but from my Australian perspective the name PlayBook would not sit well in a business environment at all. You can just picture it... the junior staff member walks into the exec meeting... the CEO asks "hey what is that?"... the junior sheepishly answers "Playbook". Your fired... no games in my meetings!
Ok over dramatised.. but seriously, playbook, for business?
Considering that Apple is the only company that is really doing anything particularly innovative, do you blame him?
I love that there's new competition out there for Apple. Consumers will benefit. My only gripe is, all of these "new" devices are just Apple product "knock-offs". Who really is doing something completely different. Apple rocked the mobile phone industry with the iPhone and now, the market is saturated with devices that are similar but not innovative. While everyone else was pushing netbooks, Apple came out with the iPad and now everyone and their dogs are trying to enter the tablet market. Look at the new laptops out there and you'll find so many that on first glance, "look" like the Macbook Pro.
As I said, I love the competition. However, I want to see some of these other companies introduce devices (not concepts) that actually change the way we do thing for the better. Lately, the only company that does is Apple.
I would have to say Apple was always like this it isn't something recent. Its hard to come up with anything that isn't going to look like the iPad because a Slate is a Slate and there is only so much you can do with the looks.
Its whats inside that really counts. I like the fact this is going to have a dual core processor and some of the other specs. Not saying its going to actually compete with the iPad because RIM is really in the dumps right now.
Most smartphones on the outside are going to look the same to some degree as ae most Tablets.
I do find it interesting that others are going with a 7" model that may be them come to grips with the fact that is the only way they can compete is if someone wants something smaller then the iPad.
Like I said in my other post the only OS that can compete with Appe right now is Android. So combine hardware from HTC and Android 3.0 and maybe you have something that can compete with the iPad. Until then I simply don't see it happening.
And Apple was able to sell that many iphones because carriers had to massively subsidize the iphone --- to the point that AT&T had to issue a profit margin warning.
I figure AT&T and the other carriers are doing just fine. Look at the disparity in the data plans for the iPad: One plan lets you consume data for a little over a penny per MB. The low consumption plan charges 6 cents per MB. If they're struggling why the disparity? The disparity shows they're doing well. And selling tons of bandwidth that never gets consumed. Why do they keep coming back for more iPhone? Not to mention their cash cow texting plans.
The iPhone may be a dent up front with all the subsidies on plans they haven't collected from yet. But once they start billing I'm sure they do just fine.
I don't see that as being a big difference. Apple wanted to get the word on the street before other products launched and potentially stole their spotlight. They also wanted to get the SDK out to developers prior to launch. I don't see RIM's announcement as being that much different.
Actually, it is a bit surprising that you don't see the basic difference. One was a game-changing product for which there was no precedent. The other a derivative.
You can figure out which is which.
Developers were not on the map much even when Apple introduced the actual product. Apple was most likely using the lead time to figure out market demand.
Maybe it sounds better to the North American audience, but from my Australian perspective the name PlayBook would not sit well in a business environment at all. You can just picture it... the junior staff member walks into the exec meeting... the CEO asks "hey what is that?"... the junior sheepishly answers "Playbook". Your fired... no games in my meetings!
Ok over dramatised.. but seriously, playbook, for business?
We don't work here in the US. We play.
At least I do. I work in the bicycle industry. Definitely getting a Playbook for business use!
How can RIM put up the text "first multitasking tablet" (or whatever) in that video when it clearly is not?
Apple obviously have multitasking running on the iPad - SJ demoed it recently - though it won't be available to use until November.
RIM have shown a video, no tangible hardware that I'm aware of and even if they did it won't be available until 2011 - at least two months after Apple make a multitasking iPad available to market.
Isn't this just a blatant contravention of some kind of advertising standard or something, or can a company just make up anything they like now?
Comments
I love that there's new competition out there for Apple. Consumers will benefit. My only gripe is, all of these "new" devices are just Apple product "knock-offs". Who really is doing something completely different. Apple rocked the mobile phone industry with the iPhone and now, the market is saturated with devices that are similar but not innovative. While everyone else was pushing netbooks, Apple came out with the iPad and now everyone and their dogs are trying to enter the tablet market. Look at the new laptops out there and you'll find so many that on first glance, "look" like the Macbook Pro.
As I said, I love the competition. However, I want to see some of these other companies introduce devices (not concepts) that actually change the way we do thing for the better. Lately, the only company that does is Apple.
Most other companies aren't paranoid like Apple when it comes to releasing specs. Not saying that is good or bad just that Steve Jobs tends to be the only one that worries about stuff like that.
And Apple was able to sell that many iphones because carriers had to massively subsidize the iphone --- to the point that AT&T had to issue a profit margin warning.
AT&T never did buy an iPhone and get another for free nor did they give away iPhones for free.
I don't know if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not, but I'm not the one accusing anyone of fakery.
You dont, however, seem to get the difference between showing an actually running product ( albeit on a prototype machine), annoucing pricing, and release dates ( to the day) and releasing an SDK for it that very day, or soon after and just showing a video.
Thats the thing here. Just a video.
You seem confused by the fact that Apple also do videos. However they do this after they have demonstrated the product.
Most other companies aren't paranoid like Apple when it comes to releasing specs. Not saying that is good or bad just that Steve Jobs tends to be the only one that worries about stuff like that.
They were paranoid enough not to mention the processor or expected price point, which at these specs will cost more than the high end iPad.
Y'know one company that is paranoid about releasing specs? Bose. And when you think about it, the complaints about Bose are similar to the ones about Apple. Basically that they advertise to overcome an inferior technical product. Of course, the complaints are from people who worry about crossover frequencies....
Still, it's kind of a striking similarity I never thought about before.
You are right on that when it comes to Bose. Their product can be out for 10 years and you still have no clue on the specs.
.
... Is it good enough enough and soon enough to change any iPad buying decisions.
Will anyone accept a "good for one PlayBook" gift card in his Xmas stocking?
Will IT or enteprise delay their "tablet" deployment projects for this?
I think the answer is no to all of the above -- it's pretty hard to go wrong with a $500 bird in the hand.
Sent from my real, live bird!
.
This won't be taking sales from the iPad 2 (which will be out around the same time), but provided the product is as good as it appears, I suspect many BB owners will go for it. The tablet market looks ready to expand like the smartphone market has, and we'll all benefit.
AT&T never did buy an iPhone and get another for free nor did they give away iPhones for free.
But Verizon never needed to announce a profit margin warning on all those buy-one-get-one-free blackberries either.
Therefore --- the only logical explanation that pass SEC filing standard is that handset subsidies for the blackberries ain't that bad.
I don't see that as being a big difference. Apple wanted to get the word on the street before other products launched and potentially stole their spotlight. They also wanted to get the SDK out to developers prior to launch. I don't see RIM's announcement as being that much different.
I don't see anything about the RIM SDK in this story. If there was, then you would have a stronger point about RIM's early announce being very similar to Apple's. But I think the guy who said that the fact that Steve had a working shipping version in his hands vs. a faked up concept is an important point.
Ok over dramatised.. but seriously, playbook, for business?
Considering that Apple is the only company that is really doing anything particularly innovative, do you blame him?
I love that there's new competition out there for Apple. Consumers will benefit. My only gripe is, all of these "new" devices are just Apple product "knock-offs". Who really is doing something completely different. Apple rocked the mobile phone industry with the iPhone and now, the market is saturated with devices that are similar but not innovative. While everyone else was pushing netbooks, Apple came out with the iPad and now everyone and their dogs are trying to enter the tablet market. Look at the new laptops out there and you'll find so many that on first glance, "look" like the Macbook Pro.
As I said, I love the competition. However, I want to see some of these other companies introduce devices (not concepts) that actually change the way we do thing for the better. Lately, the only company that does is Apple.
I would have to say Apple was always like this it isn't something recent. Its hard to come up with anything that isn't going to look like the iPad because a Slate is a Slate and there is only so much you can do with the looks.
Its whats inside that really counts. I like the fact this is going to have a dual core processor and some of the other specs. Not saying its going to actually compete with the iPad because RIM is really in the dumps right now.
Most smartphones on the outside are going to look the same to some degree as ae most Tablets.
I do find it interesting that others are going with a 7" model that may be them come to grips with the fact that is the only way they can compete is if someone wants something smaller then the iPad.
Like I said in my other post the only OS that can compete with Appe right now is Android. So combine hardware from HTC and Android 3.0 and maybe you have something that can compete with the iPad. Until then I simply don't see it happening.
And Apple was able to sell that many iphones because carriers had to massively subsidize the iphone --- to the point that AT&T had to issue a profit margin warning.
I figure AT&T and the other carriers are doing just fine. Look at the disparity in the data plans for the iPad: One plan lets you consume data for a little over a penny per MB. The low consumption plan charges 6 cents per MB. If they're struggling why the disparity? The disparity shows they're doing well. And selling tons of bandwidth that never gets consumed. Why do they keep coming back for more iPhone? Not to mention their cash cow texting plans.
The iPhone may be a dent up front with all the subsidies on plans they haven't collected from yet. But once they start billing I'm sure they do just fine.
But Verizon never needed to announce a profit margin warning on all those buy-one-get-one-free blackberries either.
Therefore --- the only logical explanation that pass SEC filing standard is that handset subsidies for the blackberries ain't that bad.
The estimated subsidy for the iPhone in 2008 was $325 as a point of reference.
They were paranoid enough not to mention the processor or expected price point, which at these specs will cost more than the high end iPad.
Which was the same probem HP had with the Slate. That was suppose to enter the market at 800.00 and HP decided to pull it.
I don't see that as being a big difference. Apple wanted to get the word on the street before other products launched and potentially stole their spotlight. They also wanted to get the SDK out to developers prior to launch. I don't see RIM's announcement as being that much different.
Actually, it is a bit surprising that you don't see the basic difference. One was a game-changing product for which there was no precedent. The other a derivative.
You can figure out which is which.
Developers were not on the map much even when Apple introduced the actual product. Apple was most likely using the lead time to figure out market demand.
Their message is "this is going to be a cool product."
The operative words are going to be!
I suspect that, if he wanted to, Steve could demo a device tomorrow with equal or better specs, for say, $399.
Give it a Feb 2011 availability, with the known ecosystem of iOS, SDK (available today), app store...
What would that do to all these iPad wannabes?
.
But Verizon never needed to announce a profit margin warning on all those buy-one-get-one-free blackberries either.
Therefore --- the only logical explanation that pass SEC filing standard is that handset subsidies for the blackberries ain't that bad.
The only logical explanation from a vast majority of your posts is that your work for Verizon (or have a short on ATT).
Maybe it sounds better to the North American audience, but from my Australian perspective the name PlayBook would not sit well in a business environment at all. You can just picture it... the junior staff member walks into the exec meeting... the CEO asks "hey what is that?"... the junior sheepishly answers "Playbook". Your fired... no games in my meetings!
Ok over dramatised.. but seriously, playbook, for business?
We don't work here in the US. We play.
At least I do. I work in the bicycle industry. Definitely getting a Playbook for business use!
another crappy ipad clone....yawn
You nailed it.
Apple obviously have multitasking running on the iPad - SJ demoed it recently - though it won't be available to use until November.
RIM have shown a video, no tangible hardware that I'm aware of and even if they did it won't be available until 2011 - at least two months after Apple make a multitasking iPad available to market.
Isn't this just a blatant contravention of some kind of advertising standard or something, or can a company just make up anything they like now?