I'm amazed how many I see flying... but I am also amazed at how few I do see in coffee shops outside the biggest cities. I was in a high-end neighborhood in St. Louis this weekend at a Starbucks, and not one iPad among 7-10 nondescript laptops. Most of the people had iPhones though, so give it time. (It is possible that the people with laptops are doing functions that are only practical on a laptop, but I kind of doubt it.)
One thing that is hard for people is figuring out how the iPad fits into their life if they have an iPhone or BB plus a laptop already. They will figure it out in time, and that is what offers the growth potential.
Leveraged at about 2.6x right now with my Apple holdings. Looking forward to the next 2-3 weeks!
I don't think it's really fair to compare the iPad to the DVD or the iPhone. When all is said and done, it really is effectively a large iPod touch. Yes, the larger screen made a difference in terms of market acceptance, but it used the existing infrastructure in terms of a well-stocked App Store. On the other hand, the DVD player and the iPhone both had to start from square one, so of course they didn't sell as well.
In case you don't click on the reference link, here is the post:
WHY the iPad will be a HUGE SUCCESS and will truly change the way people use "mobile" computers.
So many pundits, bloggers and ANALysts are really missing the elephant in the room.
"Oh, it's just a big iPod Touch".
"No one really needs this".
"The market segment is not defined" .blah blah blah
It's 100% the Operating System and the User Interface.
Complete computer illiterate's will be able to pick one up and just use it.
The iPhone and iPod installed base is just a small piece of the market.
And when the Apps, specific to this platform take off, millions will be sold.
Wait till you see the New Apple iPad commercials, showing off Apps.
Fast forward to Jan 2012
If Windows and Linux do not begin a complete re-write, from the ground-up, of what a "native touch operating system" IS (ex. iPhone OS), Apple will have a five year head-start on All other operating systems (as it pertains to "a true, intuitive, mature, simple, yet Powerful touch UI). I am no genius but I'll bet my house that what you see in this video will NEVER EVER succeed "touch-wise"....EVER!! (http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/01/e...t-strictly-me/)
Android looks like it might be the only remaining competitor to Apple, OS-wise, but which company is even setup to deliver the the complete product?
Credit where it is due, vampire-slayer-slayer. Good call, especially on the first line. I gave one to my mom, who is terrified of the 'anti-virus (or anything else) has expired' flaming red warnings on her desktop, is ALL over facebook, reconnecting with friends, SENDING ME EMAILs. I had my commercial moment where I showed her how to send an email using mail and she said "It's so easy!". I kid you not. It is the truth. She feels liberated and not beholden to condescending folks (like me, I have to admit. Even when tech literate are nice, they are condescending).
....I predicted these very results back in February 3rd, 2010.
It's 100% the Operating System and the User Interface.
Complete computer illiterate's will be able to pick one up and just use it.
The iPhone and iPod installed base is just a small piece of the market.
And when the Apps, specific to this platform take off, millions will be sold.
Wait till you see the New Apple iPad commercials, showing off Apps.
Android looks like it might be the only remaining competitor to Apple, OS-wise, but which company is even setup to deliver the the complete product?
Quite right. What people tend to forget is that Apple built an entire ecosystem, and saying that the iPad is "just" a large iPod Touch completely misses the forest for the trees. Each of the predecessor devices prepared the consuming public for the release of the iPad. More correctly the iPod Touch is just a smaller iPad. The whole reason that the iPad became to popular so quickly is the simple fact that consumers were carefully prepared for and trained to use the interface by Apple. This is why the iPad went off the charts so fast, instead of the usual ramp-up of previous devices - so fast that even Apple was caught by surprise.
We as consumers have been stalled at the tradition user interface for far too long (especially as measured in "tech years"), and Apple saw an opportunity to break that stall and move us ahead into the 21st century. And yes, everyone settle down, the traditional interface isn't dead - it's still needed. But for regular "technical" or data entry use. For day-to-day interfacing and casual creation the touch interface is ideal.
As far as sales are concerned, several respondants nailed the objections cited above to the wall nicely. As supply begins to catch-up to demand sales will continue to increase, and yes eventually it will plateau out at some point. But have you ever noticed that just as sales start to flatten out, Apple brings out the next upgrade version? Timing is everything (sometimes) and Apple has this down to a fine art it seems. I don't miss Flash except under very special circumstances. For what I use the iPad for - the need for a full desktop OS is not evident, ports aren't even an issue for my day-to-day casual use, and while I have used netbooks as required by my work - I sure would not have ever paid my own money for such a complete waste of plastic. Performance-wise alone the iPad has left most of the netbooks I've used facing the other direction at the starting line. Instead of a miniature keyboard, under-powered desktop OS, wannabe notebook computer, I have a quick and nimble direct interface into the work I need to do. 'Nuf said.
I personally think that the fact that it can be thought of as a large iPod Touch is the genius part of the iPad.
Considering it was a new product category (yes I know slate type computers existed before, just not real popular), it helps that the potential buyer can conceive of what the device can do, and it doesn't take much from there to see what the potential can be. Plus he/she already knows how to use it and may already own some apps from the iPhone/iPod Touch that could be used on the new device.
It also helped that competitors and other naysayers were so busy sniggering that it is "just" a large iPod touch that the amazing popularity of the device from the get-go just left them with their knickers down. Now they are scrambling to come up with a response and will likely be a day late and a dollar short. They can copy the hardware all they want, but until they figure out that the value lies in the ecosystem all they will have is a "me too" languishing product.
Those of you that think that the sales numbers are exaggerated, then put your money where your mouth is and short AAPL stock just before the numbers. Go for it. We need someone on the other side of the trade.
I don't think it's really fair to compare the iPad to the DVD or the iPhone. When all is said and done, it really is effectively a large iPod touch. Yes, the larger screen made a difference in terms of market acceptance, but it used the existing infrastructure in terms of a well-stocked App Store. On the other hand, the DVD player and the iPhone both had to start from square one, so of course they didn't sell as well.
It's actually a very good comparison - both were evolutions of existing technology. Both the DVD and iPhone were launched into market places that already had VCRs/video discs (remember them?) and smart phones. The fact that Apple got all the pieces into place before making the move is to their credit, and I believe they are currently doing the same for the AppleTV, which will remain a $99 toy until the pieces of the puzzle are all sorted; hopefully by that time there will be a significant user base already in place with such a low price point.
When "all is said and done" you might as well call a 60" hd screen a larger version of a 21" CRT television. The iPad/iPod comparison is pointless, and superficial.
Oh wow! Now I understand the popularity of the iPad.
It's all the Sir Mix-A-Lot fans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
I don't think it's really fair to compare the iPad to the DVD or the iPhone. When all is said and done, it really is effectively a large iPod touch. Yes, the larger screen made a difference in terms of market acceptance, but it used the existing infrastructure in terms of a well-stocked App Store. On the other hand, the DVD player and the iPhone both had to start from square one, so of course they didn't sell as well.
The iPad was quite a bold new form factor in a "niche market". Remember, the iPhone had major AT&T backing. iPad[3G] went out fully unlocked and in almost all countries not marketed by telcos but Apple themselves.
It's actually a very good comparison - both were evolutions of existing technology. Both the DVD and iPhone were launched into market places that already had VCRs/video discs (remember them?) and smart phones. The fact that Apple got all the pieces into place before making the move is to their credit, and I believe they are currently doing the same for the AppleTV, which will remain a $99 toy until the pieces of the puzzle are all sorted; hopefully by that time there will be a significant user base already in place with such a low price point.
Apple didn't "get all the piece into place before making the move." They reused existing content which was developed for other devices, namely the iPhone and iPod touch. VCRs and DVDs had nothing in common. DVD players can't play VHS tapes. Adoption didn't pick up until there was a good number of DVDs available for people to buy for the players. iPads can run iPod touch apps. The iPhone was not an extension of smartphones. It couldn't any apps from any existing platform. They started from a blank slate, which is why adoption was relatively slow.
Quote:
When "all is said and done" you might as well call a 60" hd screen a larger version of a 21" CRT television. The iPad/iPod comparison is pointless, and superficial.
That makes no sense whatsoever. An HDTV has virtually no components in common with a 21" CRT, whereas the iPad and iPod touch use many of the same components, only one has a larger screen. Your argument is pointless and superficial.
Apple didn't "get all the piece into place before making the move." They reused existing content which was developed for other devices, namely the iPhone and iPod touch. VCRs and DVDs had nothing in common. DVD players can't play VHS tapes. Adoption didn't pick up until there was a good number of DVDs available for people to buy for the players. iPads can run iPod touch apps. The iPhone was not an extension of smartphones. It couldn't any apps from any existing platform. They started from a blank slate, which is why adoption was relatively slow.
That makes no sense whatsoever. An HDTV has virtually no components in common with a 21" CRT, whereas the iPad and iPod touch use many of the same components, only one has a larger screen. Your argument is pointless and superficial.
The same idiots that said the iPad would fail are now whining about the new Apple TV.
I don't how you would categorize me, but I have absolutely loved my iPad since Day 1 (5/5), but I think the new AppleTV is a disaster (1.5/5). In case you're wondering, the old AppleTV would merit a 4/5.
I don't how you would categorize me, but I have absolutely loved my iPad since Day 1 (5/5), but I think the new AppleTV is a disaster (1.5/5). In case you're wondering, the old AppleTV would merit a 4/5.
Any details? Just the lock-in, or bigger issues than that?
I don't how you would categorize me, but I have absolutely loved my iPad since Day 1 (5/5), but I think the new AppleTV is a disaster (1.5/5). In case you're wondering, the old AppleTV would merit a 4/5.
Wow! I have both the old and new AppleTV, and I think the new one trumps the old one hands downs. The old AppleTV was mainly tied to iTunes store. That's not the case with the new and improved AppleTv.
I've been playing around with AirPlay - basically using my iPad as a remote. While using my iPad as a remote, I can navigate to any of my favorite sites, click on any video, click AirPlay and boom - the content streams directly to my AppleTv. Here are just a few sites:
DailyMotion
VideoJug
Vimeo
Veetle
ESPN
Let's not forget Hulu and Netflix...the list goes on and on. And this doesn't even include music,ie., Pandora and Tunein Radio etc.
Already this week we've learned the new AppleTV can handle apps. I'm sorry man, but the old AppleTV can't hold a candle to this.
If the iPad doesn't do it all, I think that's exactly what consumers should be expecting when they buy one. Apple isn't marketing the iPad as a laptop or desktop replacement. Sadly there are millions of consumers out there who are, no offence intended, clueless when it comes to technology.
I attribute it to laziness. A lot of people simply don't want to take the time to figure out what they've got and what it can do. Numerous netbooks purchasers wound up disappointed because they were buying those devices with the expectation that they'd be getting a full-function computer at a bargain price. The misconception is understandable because netbooks are, more or less, shrunken laptops with the same form factor. The iPad, I thought, was less confusing in that it has been offered up, right from the start, as something of a product fitting into a different category.
Yet it's really not valid to argue that the iPad is an entirely new product that has enjoyed rapid acceptance. In many ways the iPad is a logical next step in the evolution of devices that had their genesis in the iPod. It is very much an extremely large Touch, which is a good thing. If there are those whining that the iPad isn't a laptop alternative, all one can say is, that's right, it's not a laptop alternative. It's a less portable alternative to the Touch with advanatages resulting from a much larger screen. Apple doesn't want to see laptop and desktop sales plummet with consumers flocking to touchscreen devices instead. Rather, in an ideal scenario, the iPad is a product that is purchased in addition to a laptop or desktop, for those who need the extra connectivity and power that those devices possess. I don't think that these days there are many of us who could make do with the meagre RAM the iPad comes with to store all of our digital content. That's not the idea at all. But if you can consume content on a convenient device tethered to a more capable one, that's a good thing.
Comments
But.... but...? it doesn?t have Flash.
But.... but...? it doesn?t have full desktop OS.
But.... but...? it doesn?t have multiple USB ports, HDMI, VGA or component out.
But.... but...? it costs twice as much a netbook.
That's a lot of buts and some of them are big.
Oh wow! Now I understand the popularity of the iPad.
It's all the Sir Mix-A-Lot fans.
One thing that is hard for people is figuring out how the iPad fits into their life if they have an iPhone or BB plus a laptop already. They will figure it out in time, and that is what offers the growth potential.
Leveraged at about 2.6x right now with my Apple holdings. Looking forward to the next 2-3 weeks!
....I predicted these very results back in February 3rd, 2010.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...00#post1565500
In case you don't click on the reference link, here is the post:
WHY the iPad will be a HUGE SUCCESS and will truly change the way people use "mobile" computers.
So many pundits, bloggers and ANALysts are really missing the elephant in the room.
"Oh, it's just a big iPod Touch".
"No one really needs this".
"The market segment is not defined" .blah blah blah
It's 100% the Operating System and the User Interface.
Complete computer illiterate's will be able to pick one up and just use it.
The iPhone and iPod installed base is just a small piece of the market.
And when the Apps, specific to this platform take off, millions will be sold.
Wait till you see the New Apple iPad commercials, showing off Apps.
Fast forward to Jan 2012
If Windows and Linux do not begin a complete re-write, from the ground-up, of what a "native touch operating system" IS (ex. iPhone OS), Apple will have a five year head-start on All other operating systems (as it pertains to "a true, intuitive, mature, simple, yet Powerful touch UI). I am no genius but I'll bet my house that what you see in this video will NEVER EVER succeed "touch-wise"....EVER!! (http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/01/e...t-strictly-me/)
Android looks like it might be the only remaining competitor to Apple, OS-wise, but which company is even setup to deliver the the complete product?
Credit where it is due, vampire-slayer-slayer. Good call, especially on the first line. I gave one to my mom, who is terrified of the 'anti-virus (or anything else) has expired' flaming red warnings on her desktop, is ALL over facebook, reconnecting with friends, SENDING ME EMAILs. I had my commercial moment where I showed her how to send an email using mail and she said "It's so easy!". I kid you not. It is the truth. She feels liberated and not beholden to condescending folks (like me, I have to admit. Even when tech literate are nice, they are condescending).
....I predicted these very results back in February 3rd, 2010.
It's 100% the Operating System and the User Interface.
Complete computer illiterate's will be able to pick one up and just use it.
The iPhone and iPod installed base is just a small piece of the market.
And when the Apps, specific to this platform take off, millions will be sold.
Wait till you see the New Apple iPad commercials, showing off Apps.
Android looks like it might be the only remaining competitor to Apple, OS-wise, but which company is even setup to deliver the the complete product?
Quite right. What people tend to forget is that Apple built an entire ecosystem, and saying that the iPad is "just" a large iPod Touch completely misses the forest for the trees. Each of the predecessor devices prepared the consuming public for the release of the iPad. More correctly the iPod Touch is just a smaller iPad. The whole reason that the iPad became to popular so quickly is the simple fact that consumers were carefully prepared for and trained to use the interface by Apple. This is why the iPad went off the charts so fast, instead of the usual ramp-up of previous devices - so fast that even Apple was caught by surprise.
We as consumers have been stalled at the tradition user interface for far too long (especially as measured in "tech years"), and Apple saw an opportunity to break that stall and move us ahead into the 21st century. And yes, everyone settle down, the traditional interface isn't dead - it's still needed. But for regular "technical" or data entry use. For day-to-day interfacing and casual creation the touch interface is ideal.
As far as sales are concerned, several respondants nailed the objections cited above to the wall nicely. As supply begins to catch-up to demand sales will continue to increase, and yes eventually it will plateau out at some point. But have you ever noticed that just as sales start to flatten out, Apple brings out the next upgrade version? Timing is everything (sometimes) and Apple has this down to a fine art it seems. I don't miss Flash except under very special circumstances. For what I use the iPad for - the need for a full desktop OS is not evident, ports aren't even an issue for my day-to-day casual use, and while I have used netbooks as required by my work - I sure would not have ever paid my own money for such a complete waste of plastic. Performance-wise alone the iPad has left most of the netbooks I've used facing the other direction at the starting line. Instead of a miniature keyboard, under-powered desktop OS, wannabe notebook computer, I have a quick and nimble direct interface into the work I need to do. 'Nuf said.
that's a lot of buts and some of them are big.
Oh wow! Now i understand the popularity of the ipad.
It's all the sir mix-a-lot fans.
hahhahahah
But.... but...... it's just a large iPod Touch!?
I personally think that the fact that it can be thought of as a large iPod Touch is the genius part of the iPad.
Considering it was a new product category (yes I know slate type computers existed before, just not real popular), it helps that the potential buyer can conceive of what the device can do, and it doesn't take much from there to see what the potential can be. Plus he/she already knows how to use it and may already own some apps from the iPhone/iPod Touch that could be used on the new device.
It also helped that competitors and other naysayers were so busy sniggering that it is "just" a large iPod touch that the amazing popularity of the device from the get-go just left them with their knickers down. Now they are scrambling to come up with a response and will likely be a day late and a dollar short. They can copy the hardware all they want, but until they figure out that the value lies in the ecosystem all they will have is a "me too" languishing product.
Those of you that think that the sales numbers are exaggerated, then put your money where your mouth is and short AAPL stock just before the numbers. Go for it. We need someone on the other side of the trade.
I don't think it's really fair to compare the iPad to the DVD or the iPhone. When all is said and done, it really is effectively a large iPod touch. Yes, the larger screen made a difference in terms of market acceptance, but it used the existing infrastructure in terms of a well-stocked App Store. On the other hand, the DVD player and the iPhone both had to start from square one, so of course they didn't sell as well.
It's actually a very good comparison - both were evolutions of existing technology. Both the DVD and iPhone were launched into market places that already had VCRs/video discs (remember them?) and smart phones. The fact that Apple got all the pieces into place before making the move is to their credit, and I believe they are currently doing the same for the AppleTV, which will remain a $99 toy until the pieces of the puzzle are all sorted; hopefully by that time there will be a significant user base already in place with such a low price point.
When "all is said and done" you might as well call a 60" hd screen a larger version of a 21" CRT television. The iPad/iPod comparison is pointless, and superficial.
That's a lot of buts and some of them are big.
Oh wow! Now I understand the popularity of the iPad.
It's all the Sir Mix-A-Lot fans.
I don't think it's really fair to compare the iPad to the DVD or the iPhone. When all is said and done, it really is effectively a large iPod touch. Yes, the larger screen made a difference in terms of market acceptance, but it used the existing infrastructure in terms of a well-stocked App Store. On the other hand, the DVD player and the iPhone both had to start from square one, so of course they didn't sell as well.
The iPad was quite a bold new form factor in a "niche market". Remember, the iPhone had major AT&T backing. iPad[3G] went out fully unlocked and in almost all countries not marketed by telcos but Apple themselves.
It's actually a very good comparison - both were evolutions of existing technology. Both the DVD and iPhone were launched into market places that already had VCRs/video discs (remember them?) and smart phones. The fact that Apple got all the pieces into place before making the move is to their credit, and I believe they are currently doing the same for the AppleTV, which will remain a $99 toy until the pieces of the puzzle are all sorted; hopefully by that time there will be a significant user base already in place with such a low price point.
Apple didn't "get all the piece into place before making the move." They reused existing content which was developed for other devices, namely the iPhone and iPod touch. VCRs and DVDs had nothing in common. DVD players can't play VHS tapes. Adoption didn't pick up until there was a good number of DVDs available for people to buy for the players. iPads can run iPod touch apps. The iPhone was not an extension of smartphones. It couldn't any apps from any existing platform. They started from a blank slate, which is why adoption was relatively slow.
When "all is said and done" you might as well call a 60" hd screen a larger version of a 21" CRT television. The iPad/iPod comparison is pointless, and superficial.
That makes no sense whatsoever. An HDTV has virtually no components in common with a 21" CRT, whereas the iPad and iPod touch use many of the same components, only one has a larger screen. Your argument is pointless and superficial.
Apple didn't "get all the piece into place before making the move." They reused existing content which was developed for other devices, namely the iPhone and iPod touch. VCRs and DVDs had nothing in common. DVD players can't play VHS tapes. Adoption didn't pick up until there was a good number of DVDs available for people to buy for the players. iPads can run iPod touch apps. The iPhone was not an extension of smartphones. It couldn't any apps from any existing platform. They started from a blank slate, which is why adoption was relatively slow.
That makes no sense whatsoever. An HDTV has virtually no components in common with a 21" CRT, whereas the iPad and iPod touch use many of the same components, only one has a larger screen. Your argument is pointless and superficial.
You make a convincing argument. Well done.
The same idiots that said the iPad would fail are now whining about the new Apple TV.
I don't how you would categorize me, but I have absolutely loved my iPad since Day 1 (5/5), but I think the new AppleTV is a disaster (1.5/5). In case you're wondering, the old AppleTV would merit a 4/5.
I don't how you would categorize me, but I have absolutely loved my iPad since Day 1 (5/5), but I think the new AppleTV is a disaster (1.5/5). In case you're wondering, the old AppleTV would merit a 4/5.
Any details? Just the lock-in, or bigger issues than that?
That's the sound of Steve Balmer's teeth grinding together....
I don't how you would categorize me, but I have absolutely loved my iPad since Day 1 (5/5), but I think the new AppleTV is a disaster (1.5/5). In case you're wondering, the old AppleTV would merit a 4/5.
Wow! I have both the old and new AppleTV, and I think the new one trumps the old one hands downs. The old AppleTV was mainly tied to iTunes store. That's not the case with the new and improved AppleTv.
I've been playing around with AirPlay - basically using my iPad as a remote. While using my iPad as a remote, I can navigate to any of my favorite sites, click on any video, click AirPlay and boom - the content streams directly to my AppleTv. Here are just a few sites:
DailyMotion
VideoJug
Vimeo
Veetle
ESPN
Let's not forget Hulu and Netflix...the list goes on and on. And this doesn't even include music,ie., Pandora and Tunein Radio etc.
Already this week we've learned the new AppleTV can handle apps. I'm sorry man, but the old AppleTV can't hold a candle to this.
Now that's video content at your fingertips.
I attribute it to laziness. A lot of people simply don't want to take the time to figure out what they've got and what it can do. Numerous netbooks purchasers wound up disappointed because they were buying those devices with the expectation that they'd be getting a full-function computer at a bargain price. The misconception is understandable because netbooks are, more or less, shrunken laptops with the same form factor. The iPad, I thought, was less confusing in that it has been offered up, right from the start, as something of a product fitting into a different category.
Yet it's really not valid to argue that the iPad is an entirely new product that has enjoyed rapid acceptance. In many ways the iPad is a logical next step in the evolution of devices that had their genesis in the iPod. It is very much an extremely large Touch, which is a good thing. If there are those whining that the iPad isn't a laptop alternative, all one can say is, that's right, it's not a laptop alternative. It's a less portable alternative to the Touch with advanatages resulting from a much larger screen. Apple doesn't want to see laptop and desktop sales plummet with consumers flocking to touchscreen devices instead. Rather, in an ideal scenario, the iPad is a product that is purchased in addition to a laptop or desktop, for those who need the extra connectivity and power that those devices possess. I don't think that these days there are many of us who could make do with the meagre RAM the iPad comes with to store all of our digital content. That's not the idea at all. But if you can consume content on a convenient device tethered to a more capable one, that's a good thing.
Neither did I. I am still not taken with my new one but I am enjoying it more as there are more apps for it and I’m enjoying the features of iOS 4.2.
But.... but...… it doesn’t have Flash.
But.... but...… it doesn’t have full desktop OS.
But.... but...… it doesn’t have multiple USB ports, HDMI, VGA or component out.
But.... but...… it costs twice as much a netbook.
Plus with that stupid name, you know like a female product ... It doesn't stand a chance!