In US businesses it is very common to use "sports" metaphors or analogies. It's common to say something will be a "home run" or "touchdown". And also that everyone on the "team" is using the same "playbook".
No, the 1 GB is not storage but system memory, and yes, the iPad only has 512 MB. RIM never mentioned how much storage would be on the devices, but most reports presume 16 and 32 GB.
The iPad has less 256Mb. It's the iPhone 4 which has 512Mb.
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.
What exactly will Android 3.0 bring to the table that makes it better suited for tablets than 2.x?
I wondered about the Dual Core 1 GHz ARM CPU, the 1 GB RAM -- they seemed like odd (expensive) overkill for the small screen PlayBook.
... then rthere was the undefined battery life spec.
Well, these mysteries seem to be solved:
Quote:
Built with the security, efficiency and seamless connectivity from the ground up you?d expect from RIM
There are currently two application development approaches for the BlackBerry Tablet OS:
Web Applications with HTML5 ? Developers will be able to create compelling applications using HTML5, CSS and JavaScript®, which leverage the WebKit rendering engine.
Web Applications with Flash ? Leveraging Adobe?s tools, developers will be able to create visually rich applications using Flash 10.1.
Application distribution through the BlackBerry App World? storefront makes it easy for end-users to discover, download and use your application.
This means that developers will write apps that are interpreted/executed at runtime rather than executed as native machine language. This requires additional CPU cycles, RAM and battery -- which are some of the reasons Apple will not allow Flash on iOS.
While the HTML5/CSS/JavaScript approach has these same issues, they are open standards that can be addressed with iOS implementation.
Presumably, at some later time PlayBook will allow Java apps -- These. too, require runtime interpretation, but at a much lower (more-efficient) level.
Also, it appears that the reason, that RIM will be able to get up and running, quickly, is that they do not need to provide an SDK -- Adobe provides the Flash SDK, and Open Standards provide the HTML5/CSS/JavaScript SDK (likely, using an Adobe tool).
RIM/QNX has to provide the base device OS and expose low-level capabilities to the higher-level tools.
I expect that most system-wide services will be supplied by the QNX OS.
In effect, I think this means the PlayBook (at least, initially) will have sort of a hybrid QNX/Flash OS and SDK.
It sounds a little scary... but we'll have to see how that works out.
So, it appears as if the competing OSes for the Tablet market are:
There is no way in hell that this will be ready for release before 3Q 2011!
End of Quote
So it is not that there is a misrepresentation as you suggest. Dick Applebaum is claiming that RIM got up in front of the press and in effect said:
"we have this OS from QNX that is going to run our tablet that we will ship in a few months at the beginning of 2011",
However, according to Dick, in reality, there is no OS at all, and the tablet will not ship for another year.
That is what people are saying is implausible, because RIM would have to be truly stupid to do something like that.
Companies do this shit all the time. The RIM tablet at this point exists only on paper. They have an OS that runs on the processor they are planning to use, they will copy UI from the iPad (like Samsung), webOS, etc., the SDK is Web+Flash, so they don't have anything to produce for developers (the choice of dev tools is another indication that this is a hacked together rush job, btw), and the hardware design will be a mashup of the Torch and iPad. They will try to cobble this together as quickly as possible, and early 2011 by their reasoning lasts until the end of Q2, so they have about 9 months to ship product to make their date.
But, the purpose of this is to delay customers from buying competing products. By saying early 2011, people (including some in this thread) are thinking, Jan-Mar, but that's totally implausible, other than some prototype units. If they can't make June, they'll simply announce that it's slightly delayed and will be here real soon now.
That's kind of what I was thinking here. I think the reason why everyone on this forum is sort of excited about this product, is because RIM is a company with a really good track record for successful products. I don't know any other smartphone a I've overheard people saying they'd rather have over the iPhone. Plus they pretty much own the business-end of smartphones, however the iPhone and Android phones are quickly taking over that slot. So given that, it's pretty simple to understand why people are being drawn to the Playbook, not to mention that other forums on AI i've seen an overwhelming interest in a 7" iPad. So given a strong competitor, a solid looking device and a company with a good track record...this will probably be the business tablet to have for most managers.
it seems to me a few people making some wild assumptions, based on nothing.
I don't have a crystal ball that tells me the success of this, but I'm amazed at how quickly people are shouting vapourware. It's RIM, not microsoft we're talking about
I am not a techie, but do you understand the difference between (disk) storage space and RAM?
much
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee
Ok, so Apple will introduce the second generation of iPad soon.
- Thinner
- Lighter
- With camera(s)
- Video Conferencing - will be a BIG Deal
- Faster
- Better Battery life
- Available in colors
- For LESS- and oh yeah, one more thing, now available in 3 sizes!
- Big one, is lighter the ANY other tablet on the market - so is bigger better?
- The mid size, is for all of you who want a mid-size tablet
- and the smallest one, is for those who want a small one
Then where will the competition be?
The iPodTouch is just an iPhone "without the phone", which has been worked around too, based on the Chinese creation.
Before it got into the hands of consumers, many all self-professed "tech analysts", like that guy from Newsweek who masqueraded as the Fake Steve Jobs, believed that the iPad, is just nothing but a larger iPod Touch. Perhaps, much like the US Sixth Fleet Flagship is nothing but a larger gunboat?
A few months after April, one could claim that iPod Touch and the iPhone, were actually the smaller iPad -- if Steve revelation would be accepted. One could say the smaller iPad has already been in place, for more than three years, going on four. The iPod Touch, never really gettting a truly competitive rival.
I would understand a 5-7-inch iPad or would welcome even an iPad in steroids ("OSX-featured" iOS, and even larger screen???). but do you really think Apple under Steve Jobs will fragment the iPad model, and in different colors so soon?
The rainbow colors of the iPod, has its origins from the original iMac, but even the iMac, has veered away from that rainbow color. Also, it was much later before the smaller iPods have been introduced, and now provided some more specific niche, because the iPods had matured.
If anything, the iPod Touch is being differentiated from the style of the iPods, and more akin to the iPhone. It may also mimic the few colors of the iPhone models (to date two -- black and white).
I am not sure that with these more complex and more delicate mobile computing models would be offered in rainbow colors so soon, if ever. Do not forget the issues with the white iPhone because of the unique casing of the iPhone 4.
Apple, because of its exclusive rights, for electronic products, may be experimenting right now or might be a direction Apple would take in the future. While at first glance, it may be costly, the features of the alloy material allows more easy and mass molding, like glass and plastics, thereby reducing manufacturing cost, significantly. Not only is it scratch-proof, its tensile strength, allows thinner walls for the casing thickness, thereby using less material and would likely be lighter than existing iPhones or iPod Touch.
If Apple is ever going to use this LiquidMetal, as casing material, rather than used for special parts, it is likely that Jon Ivy, would hide the novelty of such a material with a coat of color.
A "Dick Tracy-like" gadget may come from a future evolution of the iPod Nano. [Gadgets for kids, and young teenagers, under the blanket? No need for penlights or flashlights to enjoy those "simple pleasures", so dear and novel to younger kids] The changes in the iPod Nano, points to that direction, even if the video capabilities, were excluded in the latest version.
Companies do this shit all the time. The RIM tablet at this point exists only on paper. They have an OS that runs on the processor they are planning to use, they will copy UI from the iPad (like Samsung), webOS, etc., the SDK is Web+Flash, so they don't have anything to produce for developers (the choice of dev tools is another indication that this is a hacked together rush job, btw), and the hardware design will be a mashup of the Torch and iPad. They will try to cobble this together as quickly as possible, and early 2011 by their reasoning lasts until the end of Q2, so they have about 9 months to ship product to make their date.
But, the purpose of this is to delay customers from buying competing products. By saying early 2011, people (including some in this thread) are thinking, Jan-Mar, but that's totally implausible, other than some prototype units. If they can't make June, they'll simply announce that it's slightly delayed and will be here real soon now.
Wish I could have said that as well and in as few words.
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.
Just to add to your comment, questioning Apple's "paranoia" or "secrecy" (one of the keys to their success) at this point is like someone saying to Michael Phelps: "I know you keep winning gold medals, but I don't like it when you move your arms like that."
Just to add to your comment, questioning Apple's "paranoia" or "secrecy" (one of the keys to their success) at this point is like someone saying to Michael Phelps: "I know you keep winning gold medals, but I don't like it when you move your arms like that."
Huh? Whatever they happen to be advertising, they are both advertisements.
The Apple ad was an invitation to the October launch of the actual product. It was a finished product by then. The 'ad' as you call it for the RIM device seem to be somewhat less than that to me. Is the actual final product there, even as a silhouette as it is in the apple invitation ad? The Apple ad, remember was done as a 'tease' so Apple could actually show the real thing live.
It's one thing to tease with a product and another to simply create an illusion of one. However, reading back through all the posts in this thread you seem to have an axe to grind but I can't figure what it is, so I doubt you will agree with anything I say.
it seems to me a few people making some wild assumptions, based on nothing.
I don't have a crystal ball that tells me the success of this, but I'm amazed at how quickly people are shouting vapourware. It's RIM, not microsoft we're talking about
True lol, RIM isn't MS (They had a successful product in the last decade)... but RIM might be up against the wall after their last launched product fizzled. Their share holders needed something to hope for and perhaps this is what the movie was made for. As Solipism said RIM do not have the all the areas, design, HW, SW, power management, eco system, ancillary products and CPU (not to mention a boat load of cash) mastered as do Apple. Now add in LiquidMetal ... It's going to be a tough field to plough. I don't wish RIM any harm and I hope they do well. Just saying ...
I'd like to refer back to this. Several people are saying that it's highly unlikely or beyond the pale to think that RIM would wildly misrepresent their new OS-- that they'd have to be stupid or crazy to expose themselves to that kind of grief, and that there's no evidence that they're that stupid.
But Nokia did precisely this, and Nokia isn't generally thought of as "stupid", in that sense (they don't seem to be very good at hanging onto market share, but I never thought of them as duplicitous or erratic, particularly). But they went ahead and made that video. I can imagine the exact argument being made here being made upon viewing the N97 piece. The same admiration for the fluidity and style of the UI, the same dismissal of the idea that Nokia would be so insane as to just make shit up, the same request that someone provide evidence of Nokia's capacity for that level of folly.
I think the thread has confusingly conflated several meanings of "vaporware." I don't doubt that RIM will be shipping something, even if it's somewhat delayed. I also think it's entirely possible that that something won't actually behave much like the video, which plays more like a broad conceptual piece than a demonstration of any product. If that proves to be the case I'm sure RIM could point out that the application of screens to various real world objects made it clear that the video was just dreaming about the future, or something. But I really don't think it's out of the question that this kind of rendered publicity can get pretty far afield from actual shipping product.
Maybe calling it vaporware isn?t the most accurate. I?m using it in a broad sense to mean a product that hasn?t yet materialized, but I can see how others may interpret to mean that I don?t think it will ship at all.
Wikipedia has a comprehensive description of vaporware.
It also suggested glossyware, which seems to be a related but different from these promo videos. Maybe there needs to be a new term for this highly polished, animated marketing.
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.
Terrible terrible comparison. Bose consumer speakers sound like shit for what you pay for them. I have demoed $200 speakers against a $1200 Bose system and it was not even close in any way. Bose had poor bass quality, a significant gap of missing mid bass frequencies, muddy mids and less detail in the highs. Pure crap. They know it too, the licensed retailers are not allowed to put them in demo rooms where customers can do a side by side and the demo material they play on them has been specifically selected not to show the warts.
Apple does not advertise to overcome an inferior technical product. Apple focuses on the aspects of the products that matter to normal non-geek humans and sometimes that means technical specs are not important or are even a hinderence. Take the mega pixels of the camera as a perfect example. Apple chose a camera for the iPhone 4 that will give people a pleasent looking snapshot with little need to tweek settings. It has excellent low light capability for a phone camera, especially in video mode. To do this they needed larger pixels and therefore less of them. Sure the Evo has an 8 mp camera compared to the iPhones 5 mp, but the pictures look worse, and the videos look simply horrid. HTC got the technical specs, Apple got the part that matters to people, quality images and simple editing software.
Personally I think Apple is missing the boat on iPad 1. If they add USB ports and HDMI to the next version they will significantly increase the potential utility of the device, and widen the audience. Right now it can be a netbook/notebook replacement for many people, hence the success, but it also CAN'T be a replacement for many other people. USB ports are real cheap and would go a long way. Same for HDMI video out. A more portable 7" version would be pretty cool but I would not want them to drop the 10". As for processor speed and RAM and other specs, it needs to be fast enough and have enough RAM, but I don't care what those numbers are. Just make it work. You have to give them credit for launching a very successful first product but I hope version 2 incorporates the ideas from the soon to arrive competition, as well as the existing netbook competition, and then exceeds them. That is why this Playbook is good news. Apple can't just add some more RAM and speed up the processor for the 2011 iPad. They need to compete.
Comments
No, the 1 GB is not storage but system memory, and yes, the iPad only has 512 MB. RIM never mentioned how much storage would be on the devices, but most reports presume 16 and 32 GB.
The iPad has less 256Mb. It's the iPhone 4 which has 512Mb.
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.
What exactly will Android 3.0 bring to the table that makes it better suited for tablets than 2.x?
... Mysteries solved...
I wondered about the Dual Core 1 GHz ARM CPU, the 1 GB RAM -- they seemed like odd (expensive) overkill for the small screen PlayBook.
... then rthere was the undefined battery life spec.
Well, these mysteries seem to be solved:
Built with the security, efficiency and seamless connectivity from the ground up you?d expect from RIM
There are currently two application development approaches for the BlackBerry Tablet OS:
- Web Applications with HTML5 ? Developers will be able to create compelling applications using HTML5, CSS and JavaScript®, which leverage the WebKit rendering engine.
- Web Applications with Flash ? Leveraging Adobe?s tools, developers will be able to create visually rich applications using Flash 10.1.
Application distribution through the BlackBerry App World? storefront makes it easy for end-users to discover, download and use your application.http://na.blackberry.com/eng/developers/tablet.jsp
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/f...ackberrytabos/
This means that developers will write apps that are interpreted/executed at runtime rather than executed as native machine language. This requires additional CPU cycles, RAM and battery -- which are some of the reasons Apple will not allow Flash on iOS.
While the HTML5/CSS/JavaScript approach has these same issues, they are open standards that can be addressed with iOS implementation.
Presumably, at some later time PlayBook will allow Java apps -- These. too, require runtime interpretation, but at a much lower (more-efficient) level.
Also, it appears that the reason, that RIM will be able to get up and running, quickly, is that they do not need to provide an SDK -- Adobe provides the Flash SDK, and Open Standards provide the HTML5/CSS/JavaScript SDK (likely, using an Adobe tool).
RIM/QNX has to provide the base device OS and expose low-level capabilities to the higher-level tools.
I expect that most system-wide services will be supplied by the QNX OS.
In effect, I think this means the PlayBook (at least, initially) will have sort of a hybrid QNX/Flash OS and SDK.
It sounds a little scary... but we'll have to see how that works out.
So, it appears as if the competing OSes for the Tablet market are:
-- Apple iOS
-- Google Android OS
-- HP WebOS
-- Microsoft Windows Mobile 7
-- RIM QNX/Flash OS
-- Nokia whatever
... Interesting
,
Not that either. ... Qualcomm ... Qualcomm ... Qualcomm ... Qualcomm ...
No need to shill at all.
Uh, yeah, right
- Thinner
- Lighter
- With camera(s)
- Video Conferencing - will be a BIG Deal
- Faster
- Better Battery life
- Available in colors
- For LESS- and oh yeah, one more thing, now available in 3 sizes!
- Big one, is lighter the ANY other tablet on the market - so is bigger better?
- The mid size, is for all of you who want a mid-size tablet
- and the smallest one, is for those who want a small one
Then where will the competition be?
There is no way in hell that this will be ready for release before 3Q 2011!
End of Quote
So it is not that there is a misrepresentation as you suggest. Dick Applebaum is claiming that RIM got up in front of the press and in effect said:
"we have this OS from QNX that is going to run our tablet that we will ship in a few months at the beginning of 2011",
However, according to Dick, in reality, there is no OS at all, and the tablet will not ship for another year.
That is what people are saying is implausible, because RIM would have to be truly stupid to do something like that.
Companies do this shit all the time. The RIM tablet at this point exists only on paper. They have an OS that runs on the processor they are planning to use, they will copy UI from the iPad (like Samsung), webOS, etc., the SDK is Web+Flash, so they don't have anything to produce for developers (the choice of dev tools is another indication that this is a hacked together rush job, btw), and the hardware design will be a mashup of the Torch and iPad. They will try to cobble this together as quickly as possible, and early 2011 by their reasoning lasts until the end of Q2, so they have about 9 months to ship product to make their date.
But, the purpose of this is to delay customers from buying competing products. By saying early 2011, people (including some in this thread) are thinking, Jan-Mar, but that's totally implausible, other than some prototype units. If they can't make June, they'll simply announce that it's slightly delayed and will be here real soon now.
I don't have a crystal ball that tells me the success of this, but I'm amazed at how quickly people are shouting vapourware. It's RIM, not microsoft we're talking about
The iPhone 4 has 16Gb or 32Gb of RAM NOT 512MB.
The PlayBook only has 1GB or on board storage.
I am not a techie, but do you understand the difference between (disk) storage space and RAM?
much
Ok, so Apple will introduce the second generation of iPad soon.
- Thinner
- Lighter
- With camera(s)
- Video Conferencing - will be a BIG Deal
- Faster
- Better Battery life
- Available in colors
- For LESS- and oh yeah, one more thing, now available in 3 sizes!
- Big one, is lighter the ANY other tablet on the market - so is bigger better?
- The mid size, is for all of you who want a mid-size tablet
- and the smallest one, is for those who want a small one
Then where will the competition be?
The iPodTouch is just an iPhone "without the phone", which has been worked around too, based on the Chinese creation.
Before it got into the hands of consumers, many all self-professed "tech analysts", like that guy from Newsweek who masqueraded as the Fake Steve Jobs, believed that the iPad, is just nothing but a larger iPod Touch. Perhaps, much like the US Sixth Fleet Flagship is nothing but a larger gunboat?
A few months after April, one could claim that iPod Touch and the iPhone, were actually the smaller iPad -- if Steve revelation would be accepted. One could say the smaller iPad has already been in place, for more than three years, going on four. The iPod Touch, never really gettting a truly competitive rival.
I would understand a 5-7-inch iPad or would welcome even an iPad in steroids ("OSX-featured" iOS, and even larger screen???). but do you really think Apple under Steve Jobs will fragment the iPad model, and in different colors so soon?
The rainbow colors of the iPod, has its origins from the original iMac, but even the iMac, has veered away from that rainbow color. Also, it was much later before the smaller iPods have been introduced, and now provided some more specific niche, because the iPods had matured.
If anything, the iPod Touch is being differentiated from the style of the iPods, and more akin to the iPhone. It may also mimic the few colors of the iPhone models (to date two -- black and white).
I am not sure that with these more complex and more delicate mobile computing models would be offered in rainbow colors so soon, if ever. Do not forget the issues with the white iPhone because of the unique casing of the iPhone 4.
Apple, because of its exclusive rights, for electronic products, may be experimenting right now or might be a direction Apple would take in the future. While at first glance, it may be costly, the features of the alloy material allows more easy and mass molding, like glass and plastics, thereby reducing manufacturing cost, significantly. Not only is it scratch-proof, its tensile strength, allows thinner walls for the casing thickness, thereby using less material and would likely be lighter than existing iPhones or iPod Touch.
If Apple is ever going to use this LiquidMetal, as casing material, rather than used for special parts, it is likely that Jon Ivy, would hide the novelty of such a material with a coat of color.
A "Dick Tracy-like" gadget may come from a future evolution of the iPod Nano. [Gadgets for kids, and young teenagers, under the blanket? No need for penlights or flashlights to enjoy those "simple pleasures", so dear and novel to younger kids] The changes in the iPod Nano, points to that direction, even if the video capabilities, were excluded in the latest version.
CGC
Companies do this shit all the time. The RIM tablet at this point exists only on paper. They have an OS that runs on the processor they are planning to use, they will copy UI from the iPad (like Samsung), webOS, etc., the SDK is Web+Flash, so they don't have anything to produce for developers (the choice of dev tools is another indication that this is a hacked together rush job, btw), and the hardware design will be a mashup of the Torch and iPad. They will try to cobble this together as quickly as possible, and early 2011 by their reasoning lasts until the end of Q2, so they have about 9 months to ship product to make their date.
But, the purpose of this is to delay customers from buying competing products. By saying early 2011, people (including some in this thread) are thinking, Jan-Mar, but that's totally implausible, other than some prototype units. If they can't make June, they'll simply announce that it's slightly delayed and will be here real soon now.
Wish I could have said that as well and in as few words.
.
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.
Just to add to your comment, questioning Apple's "paranoia" or "secrecy" (one of the keys to their success) at this point is like someone saying to Michael Phelps: "I know you keep winning gold medals, but I don't like it when you move your arms like that."
Just to add to your comment, questioning Apple's "paranoia" or "secrecy" (one of the keys to their success) at this point is like someone saying to Michael Phelps: "I know you keep winning gold medals, but I don't like it when you move your arms like that."
Huh? Whatever they happen to be advertising, they are both advertisements.
The Apple ad was an invitation to the October launch of the actual product. It was a finished product by then. The 'ad' as you call it for the RIM device seem to be somewhat less than that to me. Is the actual final product there, even as a silhouette as it is in the apple invitation ad? The Apple ad, remember was done as a 'tease' so Apple could actually show the real thing live.
It's one thing to tease with a product and another to simply create an illusion of one. However, reading back through all the posts in this thread you seem to have an axe to grind but I can't figure what it is, so I doubt you will agree with anything I say.
it seems to me a few people making some wild assumptions, based on nothing.
I don't have a crystal ball that tells me the success of this, but I'm amazed at how quickly people are shouting vapourware. It's RIM, not microsoft we're talking about
True lol, RIM isn't MS (They had a successful product in the last decade)... but RIM might be up against the wall after their last launched product fizzled. Their share holders needed something to hope for and perhaps this is what the movie was made for. As Solipism said RIM do not have the all the areas, design, HW, SW, power management, eco system, ancillary products and CPU (not to mention a boat load of cash) mastered as do Apple. Now add in LiquidMetal ...
I'd like to refer back to this. Several people are saying that it's highly unlikely or beyond the pale to think that RIM would wildly misrepresent their new OS-- that they'd have to be stupid or crazy to expose themselves to that kind of grief, and that there's no evidence that they're that stupid.
But Nokia did precisely this, and Nokia isn't generally thought of as "stupid", in that sense (they don't seem to be very good at hanging onto market share, but I never thought of them as duplicitous or erratic, particularly). But they went ahead and made that video. I can imagine the exact argument being made here being made upon viewing the N97 piece. The same admiration for the fluidity and style of the UI, the same dismissal of the idea that Nokia would be so insane as to just make shit up, the same request that someone provide evidence of Nokia's capacity for that level of folly.
I think the thread has confusingly conflated several meanings of "vaporware." I don't doubt that RIM will be shipping something, even if it's somewhat delayed. I also think it's entirely possible that that something won't actually behave much like the video, which plays more like a broad conceptual piece than a demonstration of any product. If that proves to be the case I'm sure RIM could point out that the application of screens to various real world objects made it clear that the video was just dreaming about the future, or something. But I really don't think it's out of the question that this kind of rendered publicity can get pretty far afield from actual shipping product.
Maybe calling it vaporware isn?t the most accurate. I?m using it in a broad sense to mean a product that hasn?t yet materialized, but I can see how others may interpret to mean that I don?t think it will ship at all.
Wikipedia has a comprehensive description of vaporware.It also suggested glossyware, which seems to be a related but different from these promo videos. Maybe there needs to be a new term for this highly polished, animated marketing.
Maybe there needs to be a new term for this highly polished, animated marketing.
Virtual Prototype.
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.
Terrible terrible comparison. Bose consumer speakers sound like shit for what you pay for them. I have demoed $200 speakers against a $1200 Bose system and it was not even close in any way. Bose had poor bass quality, a significant gap of missing mid bass frequencies, muddy mids and less detail in the highs. Pure crap. They know it too, the licensed retailers are not allowed to put them in demo rooms where customers can do a side by side and the demo material they play on them has been specifically selected not to show the warts.
Apple does not advertise to overcome an inferior technical product. Apple focuses on the aspects of the products that matter to normal non-geek humans and sometimes that means technical specs are not important or are even a hinderence. Take the mega pixels of the camera as a perfect example. Apple chose a camera for the iPhone 4 that will give people a pleasent looking snapshot with little need to tweek settings. It has excellent low light capability for a phone camera, especially in video mode. To do this they needed larger pixels and therefore less of them. Sure the Evo has an 8 mp camera compared to the iPhones 5 mp, but the pictures look worse, and the videos look simply horrid. HTC got the technical specs, Apple got the part that matters to people, quality images and simple editing software.
Personally I think Apple is missing the boat on iPad 1. If they add USB ports and HDMI to the next version they will significantly increase the potential utility of the device, and widen the audience. Right now it can be a netbook/notebook replacement for many people, hence the success, but it also CAN'T be a replacement for many other people. USB ports are real cheap and would go a long way. Same for HDMI video out. A more portable 7" version would be pretty cool but I would not want them to drop the 10". As for processor speed and RAM and other specs, it needs to be fast enough and have enough RAM, but I don't care what those numbers are. Just make it work. You have to give them credit for launching a very successful first product but I hope version 2 incorporates the ideas from the soon to arrive competition, as well as the existing netbook competition, and then exceeds them. That is why this Playbook is good news. Apple can't just add some more RAM and speed up the processor for the 2011 iPad. They need to compete.
Virtual Prototype.
This is why I love community input! How about just shortening it and calling it a ProtoHype.