Hey Quadra 610 - - I don?t mind someone disagreeing with me or even arguing a point with me, but DON?T put your words in my mouth just to justify your opinion! And while I don't totaly disagree with you, there are a large number of people that buy products (Yes, even outside the tech market) solely because they look better than a product that offers more of the features they want. After all, you only need to look at guys with trophy wives to prove my point. They are expensive and can?t boil water without burning it, but they look great.
Being a former trophy husband... I have no idea what you are talking about
the "killer apps" for iPad just would not work on a 7" machine.
Which killer apps are those? I was unaware of any exclusive killer apps for the iPad. Now I learn that not only are there killer apps, but none of them will work on a 7 inch screen.
For instance, Moto was thisclose to giving up making handsets, trying to copy what Apple did would've spelled certain doom for its mobile division. Using Android's OS has for now been a smart move on their part.
To paraphrase Anssi Vanjoki ..
It's a bitterly cold day in Motorolaland and Motorola are basking in the warm afterglow of some really nice warm and steamy pants. But there could be some biting cold ahead when that cold wetness hits them.
I am convinced its going to be very hard for Android handset makers to maintain a profit level above any other Android handset maker. Like Windows hardware makers, they have no substantial way of distinguishing their products from any other manufacturers sharing the same software.
This is my theory: Agressive competition between Android handset makers will result in very low revenues for all of them.
I could be wrong. But a couple of years should prove it one way or another.
Which killer apps are those? I was unaware of any exclusive killer apps for the iPad. Now I learn that not only are there killer apps, but none of them will work on a 7 inch screen.
Which apps are killer apps?
I am not sure what is meant by Killer Apps - but I can tell you what will not work on a 7" screen.
Magazine apps - like Wired, are already a little cramped on the 10" screen. But still manage to feel like magazine pages.
Halving the screen size will destroy that, and require the user to scroll about, like an iPhone.
Comic Books - currently feel like comic books. Halving them in size destroys the illustion.
Business Documents - currently are close to full size paper. Won't be at half size.
Electronic Newspapers rely on simulating newspaper-like layouts.
This is tough, because I both agree and disagree-- and I know you get your facts right and don't shoot from the hip.
Here goes:
I don't think iPad sales have tanked (mellowed is a better term) -- According to Tim Cook they don't yet, have enough supply in the channel to meet anticipated holiday demand... They pissed off CostCo, by refusing them the iPad.
I don't think the RAM or specs matter much to most consumers (only us techies), The consumer looks what it can do for him.
Every aspect ratio is terrible -- practical for some things, not for others.
I agree that there is nothing stopping construction of usable Controls on an 7" tablet. Except no one has done it. The Galaxy Tab has provided its own UI on top of Android that is scaled to their 7" form factor -- for system apps: email, calendar, contacts, etc.
To many, portability/pocketability is a major issue. I certainly would consider a 7" form factor (as well as one greater than 10").
I agree, that it is very Jobsian to "confuse the market" and deflect attention. I suspect they built and tested several sizes of iPads, That the price / capability sweet spots were the technology in the 10" iPad. I believe these sweet spots will evolve and other sizes will be offered.
I think that Apple released the iPad form factor they did, when they did because it bought them a year advantage and first to market (setting the bar) advantage over the competition,
The key price is $499 -- everything else is the "art of price / forecast". The existence of a real product at those specs and price forced the competition back to square 1. They were expecting something at $1,000. Apple delivered a usable tablet at $500. How'd they do that... More importantly, how can we match that? By tiering price and features the way they did, Apple can measure demand, gain additional profit, provide choice, and protect devices at lower cost (iPod Touch) and higher cost (MacBook).
Ahh.. the software tuned to the devices. Like it or not these are appliance devices-- not meant to be a long term investment -- rather a current realization of practical state of the art technology. As you know, software evolves much more slowly than hardware. The new hardware capabilities must be exploited by software. Legacy software support is too expensive and restrictive for this class of device. I have 3 day-1 iPhones (all running iOS 3,1)--one has a bad touch area on the bottom of the screen-- mostly unusable except for some testing. Another was hit by a baseball bat and has a chipped/cracked screen in one corner. A little packing tape makes it usable. These 2, gen-1s, plus a 3G are SIMless and used as PGPs by the gran kids -- in lieu of buying $150 game players and $40 games. We've certainly gotten our money out of them.
The same is true, to some extent, with iPads -- 2 of these are cheaper and more flexible (transferrable to a another vehicle, motel room, etc.) than a car entertainment system. The grandkids use them in lieu of a TV to stream content form our MediaCenter, play games, stream from netflix, read books. We have a couple of hundred apps (1 purchase) that run concurrently on all our iDevices. Many are games, quite a few are creative or educational.
My youngest grandson, 10, is saving his money so he can buy an iPad -- he learned to tell time on one (missed some school when it was taught and was too embarrassed to tell anyone) -- there's an app for that!
I expect that we'll get our money out of the iPads, many times over -- its the funnest computer I've ever used (dating back to an IBM 650, circa 1956).
.
I don't always agree with every viewpoint of yours, Dick, but I almost always enjoy your posts.
This one especially. Your summation of the iPad as the funnest computer you've ever used says it all. If that is your criteria, and given your family's usage patterns, it seem to be an important one, you've nailed the appeal of the device.
Haven't read the whole thread, maybe someone pointed this out, but seems interesting to me that the executive officers of the competition get so distracted by looking at the distortion field that they spend enormous amounts of time responding to Mr. Jobs' comments. Would be also interesting to contemplate their time investment in reading things like this thread. Crazy like a fox that Mr. Jobs. Eh?
I think it is more like:
"Boss, I think we need to respond to the recent comments by Apple. Here's a script the PR people wrote for you."
Boss makes minor edits, passes it by his right-hand man for final approval, and recites it in front of the press.
anyways, getting back on topic ... i'll give RIM the benefit of the doubt on their PlayBook; the same level of doubt i gave Apple years ago when they first announced the original iPhone in 2007. i still maintain it's still a bit premature to dismiss RIM's entry into the tablet arena. i adopted the 'wait and see' approach with the iPhone and i'll do the same with the PlayBook.
Where does IT typically fit in the current enterprise structure -- what level is the highest exec?
.
In our curent environment, amidst all the VPs and Sr. VPs we have a CIO. When you venture outside of IT we go beyond the CEO all the way to the Board of directors.
and that's the main reason why average consumers buy an iPhone... they don't care about tech specs.. all they care about is the ease of useability of the phone...
No, the average consumer buys a phone that is NOT an iPhone. The Apple phone business is like number 7 worldwide. In the US, isn't it number 3?
The fact is that the average consumer does NOT buy an iPhone; a minority of consumers buy an iPhone. The average consumer buys a different phone.
I also find that Steve's remark about the sandpaper is just rude and juvenile. It's also insulting in that it makes no sense to say a 7" iPad is too small for fingers when the iPhone is even smaller.
...
I have a lot of iPhone apps with more buttons in the menu bar and much smaller targets for my fingers than Pages or Numbers on the iPad and they work very well indeed. IMO Mr. Jobs is out and out lying about some of this stuff and it's really quite apparent this time that he is. Perhaps the reality distortion field is finally breaking down. I know it has for me.
Jobs took some things for granted since he wasnt talking to the average consumer. Obvioulsy he knows the iPhone is smaller than the iPad
It's what many people have pointed our already. If you're going to provide a ui that is richer than what you get on a smartphone, it benefits from a bigger interface.
Think about clicking links on a website. On a smartphone, it's usually best to zoom in to make the link bigger and more sure to hit it. On the iPad, I don't have to do that...however, just barely. Sometimes I still zoom in to make sure I hit it, because I'm a stickler. If the screen were any smaller, it would be required for me to zoom in.
You need to provide a different ui in a tablet. You can't just make a bigger smartphone
Comments
Hey Quadra 610 - - I don?t mind someone disagreeing with me or even arguing a point with me, but DON?T put your words in my mouth just to justify your opinion! And while I don't totaly disagree with you, there are a large number of people that buy products (Yes, even outside the tech market) solely because they look better than a product that offers more of the features they want. After all, you only need to look at guys with trophy wives to prove my point. They are expensive and can?t boil water without burning it, but they look great.
Being a former trophy husband... I have no idea what you are talking about
.
@TheITGuy
Where does IT typically fit in the current enterprise structure -- what level is the highest exec?
.
the "killer apps" for iPad just would not work on a 7" machine.
Which killer apps are those? I was unaware of any exclusive killer apps for the iPad. Now I learn that not only are there killer apps, but none of them will work on a 7 inch screen.
Which apps are killer apps?
... but piot?s post was funny and poignant.
That was my intention. Thank you.
Anyways... we now have the US pricing. $600 via Verizon. So let's open the floodgates for half sized tablets at the same price as iPads.
RIM got flushed out by the Samsung Galaxy tab release and had to announce its 2011 tablet way early, even for them ...
that's speculation. as i said, look at RIM's history of announcements and their associated timings.
For instance, Moto was thisclose to giving up making handsets, trying to copy what Apple did would've spelled certain doom for its mobile division. Using Android's OS has for now been a smart move on their part.
To paraphrase Anssi Vanjoki ..
It's a bitterly cold day in Motorolaland and Motorola are basking in the warm afterglow of some really nice warm and steamy pants. But there could be some biting cold ahead when that cold wetness hits them.
I am convinced its going to be very hard for Android handset makers to maintain a profit level above any other Android handset maker. Like Windows hardware makers, they have no substantial way of distinguishing their products from any other manufacturers sharing the same software.
This is my theory: Agressive competition between Android handset makers will result in very low revenues for all of them.
I could be wrong. But a couple of years should prove it one way or another.
C.
Apple's $1.2 B in 1997 was the result of having much more cash in the early 90's and dropping through the mid-90's.
in part through software sales which is exactly what i said in a previous post.
Somehow just watching an Apple commercial gives one an instant lobotomy?
Reading all the trolls on this site... apparently it does.
Which killer apps are those? I was unaware of any exclusive killer apps for the iPad. Now I learn that not only are there killer apps, but none of them will work on a 7 inch screen.
Which apps are killer apps?
I am not sure what is meant by Killer Apps - but I can tell you what will not work on a 7" screen.
Magazine apps - like Wired, are already a little cramped on the 10" screen. But still manage to feel like magazine pages.
Halving the screen size will destroy that, and require the user to scroll about, like an iPhone.
Comic Books - currently feel like comic books. Halving them in size destroys the illustion.
Business Documents - currently are close to full size paper. Won't be at half size.
Electronic Newspapers rely on simulating newspaper-like layouts.
and so on.
C.
This is tough, because I both agree and disagree-- and I know you get your facts right and don't shoot from the hip.
Here goes:
I don't think iPad sales have tanked (mellowed is a better term) -- According to Tim Cook they don't yet, have enough supply in the channel to meet anticipated holiday demand... They pissed off CostCo, by refusing them the iPad.
I don't think the RAM or specs matter much to most consumers (only us techies), The consumer looks what it can do for him.
Every aspect ratio is terrible -- practical for some things, not for others.
I agree that there is nothing stopping construction of usable Controls on an 7" tablet. Except no one has done it. The Galaxy Tab has provided its own UI on top of Android that is scaled to their 7" form factor -- for system apps: email, calendar, contacts, etc.
To many, portability/pocketability is a major issue. I certainly would consider a 7" form factor (as well as one greater than 10").
I agree, that it is very Jobsian to "confuse the market" and deflect attention. I suspect they built and tested several sizes of iPads, That the price / capability sweet spots were the technology in the 10" iPad. I believe these sweet spots will evolve and other sizes will be offered.
I think that Apple released the iPad form factor they did, when they did because it bought them a year advantage and first to market (setting the bar) advantage over the competition,
The key price is $499 -- everything else is the "art of price / forecast". The existence of a real product at those specs and price forced the competition back to square 1. They were expecting something at $1,000. Apple delivered a usable tablet at $500. How'd they do that... More importantly, how can we match that? By tiering price and features the way they did, Apple can measure demand, gain additional profit, provide choice, and protect devices at lower cost (iPod Touch) and higher cost (MacBook).
Ahh.. the software tuned to the devices. Like it or not these are appliance devices-- not meant to be a long term investment -- rather a current realization of practical state of the art technology. As you know, software evolves much more slowly than hardware. The new hardware capabilities must be exploited by software. Legacy software support is too expensive and restrictive for this class of device. I have 3 day-1 iPhones (all running iOS 3,1)--one has a bad touch area on the bottom of the screen-- mostly unusable except for some testing. Another was hit by a baseball bat and has a chipped/cracked screen in one corner. A little packing tape makes it usable. These 2, gen-1s, plus a 3G are SIMless and used as PGPs by the gran kids -- in lieu of buying $150 game players and $40 games. We've certainly gotten our money out of them.
The same is true, to some extent, with iPads -- 2 of these are cheaper and more flexible (transferrable to a another vehicle, motel room, etc.) than a car entertainment system. The grandkids use them in lieu of a TV to stream content form our MediaCenter, play games, stream from netflix, read books. We have a couple of hundred apps (1 purchase) that run concurrently on all our iDevices. Many are games, quite a few are creative or educational.
My youngest grandson, 10, is saving his money so he can buy an iPad -- he learned to tell time on one (missed some school when it was taught and was too embarrassed to tell anyone) -- there's an app for that!
I expect that we'll get our money out of the iPads, many times over -- its the funnest computer I've ever used (dating back to an IBM 650, circa 1956).
.
I don't always agree with every viewpoint of yours, Dick, but I almost always enjoy your posts.
This one especially. Your summation of the iPad as the funnest computer you've ever used says it all. If that is your criteria, and given your family's usage patterns, it seem to be an important one, you've nailed the appeal of the device.
Haven't read the whole thread, maybe someone pointed this out, but seems interesting to me that the executive officers of the competition get so distracted by looking at the distortion field that they spend enormous amounts of time responding to Mr. Jobs' comments. Would be also interesting to contemplate their time investment in reading things like this thread. Crazy like a fox that Mr. Jobs. Eh?
I think it is more like:
"Boss, I think we need to respond to the recent comments by Apple. Here's a script the PR people wrote for you."
Boss makes minor edits, passes it by his right-hand man for final approval, and recites it in front of the press.
That $150 million investment in Apple was probably going to be a lot cheaper than the lawsuit that would have followed instead.
Microsoft gave much more to Apple that the announced sum of $150 million http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...362B533B9.html
anyways, getting back on topic ... i'll give RIM the benefit of the doubt on their PlayBook; the same level of doubt i gave Apple years ago when they first announced the original iPhone in 2007. i still maintain it's still a bit premature to dismiss RIM's entry into the tablet arena. i adopted the 'wait and see' approach with the iPhone and i'll do the same with the PlayBook.
.
@TheITGuy
Where does IT typically fit in the current enterprise structure -- what level is the highest exec?
.
In our curent environment, amidst all the VPs and Sr. VPs we have a CIO. When you venture outside of IT we go beyond the CEO all the way to the Board of directors.
The company I work for can match that.
Apple (APPL) @ Mar 6, '09 $85.03, today $309.50 an increase of 264%
CNH Global (CNH) @ Mar 6, '09 $6.57, today $39.72 an increase of 505%
Apple stock is doing well but so are other companies. So your point is?
He said: "Everybody else can suck it."
I think that was his point, and the rest was just an excuse for having it.
and that's the main reason why average consumers buy an iPhone... they don't care about tech specs.. all they care about is the ease of useability of the phone...
No, the average consumer buys a phone that is NOT an iPhone. The Apple phone business is like number 7 worldwide. In the US, isn't it number 3?
The fact is that the average consumer does NOT buy an iPhone; a minority of consumers buy an iPhone. The average consumer buys a different phone.
I also find that Steve's remark about the sandpaper is just rude and juvenile. It's also insulting in that it makes no sense to say a 7" iPad is too small for fingers when the iPhone is even smaller.
...
I have a lot of iPhone apps with more buttons in the menu bar and much smaller targets for my fingers than Pages or Numbers on the iPad and they work very well indeed. IMO Mr. Jobs is out and out lying about some of this stuff and it's really quite apparent this time that he is. Perhaps the reality distortion field is finally breaking down. I know it has for me.
+1 Insightful
No, the average consumer buys a phone that is NOT an iPhone. The Apple phone business is like number 7 worldwide. In the US, isn't it number 3?
The fact is that the average consumer does NOT buy an iPhone; a minority of consumers buy an iPhone. The average consumer buys a different phone.
Ranking has little to do with averages.
It could be argued, but I'd think it's fair to say the average smartphone consumer prefers the iphone
Yes it's called a Mac.
Macs are very nice. That is why the sell, despite all the other issues.
And technophobes like them. Also old people and artists. Some niche uses, like video production, seem to work well on them.
But for folks who want a powerful machine for a good price, and want to have lots of new cool app choices, not so much.
Ranking has little to do with averages.
It could be argued, but I'd think it's fair to say the average smartphone consumer prefers the iphone
But, the average Smartphone user will usually swing to a non-apple phone because of cost and availability from the carrier of their choice.
+1 Insightful
Hardly.
Jobs took some things for granted since he wasnt talking to the average consumer. Obvioulsy he knows the iPhone is smaller than the iPad
It's what many people have pointed our already. If you're going to provide a ui that is richer than what you get on a smartphone, it benefits from a bigger interface.
Think about clicking links on a website. On a smartphone, it's usually best to zoom in to make the link bigger and more sure to hit it. On the iPad, I don't have to do that...however, just barely. Sometimes I still zoom in to make sure I hit it, because I'm a stickler. If the screen were any smaller, it would be required for me to zoom in.
You need to provide a different ui in a tablet. You can't just make a bigger smartphone