The iPad has no tripod mount. I'm not sure why you brought that up. It seems to prove the point you argue against.
Pointing out that the iPad has no tripod mount is akin to pointing out that it has no built-in handle or screen cover. Of course it has no tripod mount. But there's no reason that a third party could not build some sort of tripod mount for the iPad?I would not be surprised to see variations crop up once a camera-enabled iPad is introduced.
Each of these photo tasks would work better with a 7 inch widescreen, IMO. Apple designed the iPad correctly, for the vast majority of consumers.
These sorts of specialized things would work best with a different device, and would not work well with an iPad. If any of that was viable, Apple would have included a rear-facing camera. They don't issue half-baked products.
I guess that history has proven you right because the only major products that Apple currently sells are the fully-baked products below:
-- the 1977 Apple ][
-- the 1984 128K Macintosh
-- the 2001 original iPod
-- the 2007 iPhone (gen 1)
Obviously there has been no need for any improvements or follow-on products.
Exactly. Even if Apple could have prepared iPad Version 2 for a late-fall debut, this way the competition will be preparing for an assault on the current iPad but by the time their plans are finalized, Apple will unleash a significantly upgraded iPad. It will be quite a few months before the competition can respond to that product and by the time they do, Apple will be close to bringing out iPad Version 3.
This is more or less what happened with the media player space and we all know how that turned out.
Agreed. "iPod" has pretty much become a generic shorthand for "portable music player", the way "Xerox" has become the generic shorthand for "photocopier" or "making photo copies". We're nearly 10 years into the iPod's entry into the world, and it has virtually no peers.
That would be pretty awesome if "iPad" became a generic shorthand for "tablet computing device".
I think the key to Apple's success is that they basically don't look at the competition. They design stuff that they think is cool?that they would want to use themselves. HP, Samsung, RIM, et al, are trying to design the "iPad killer", which is really a counterproductive approach, as it serves only to draw more attention to the iPad as the tablet archetype?the product that pundits and consumers will compare everything else to.
When I see those promo videos featuring Jonny Ive, Tim Cook, Phil Schiller and others talking about the iPad, the new MBA, etc., I know that it's carefully scripted marketing, but I also have a strong sense that they actually believe what they're saying. As my boss told me the other day, "If you speak passionately about your work, then people will be drawn to it."
Exactly. Even if Apple could have prepared iPad Version 2 for a late-fall debut, this way the competition will be preparing for an assault on the current iPad but by the time their plans are finalized, Apple will unleash a significantly upgraded iPad. It will be quite a few months before the competition can respond to that product and by the time they do, Apple will be close to bringing out iPad Version 3.
This is more or less what happened with the media player space and we all know how that turned out.
Exactly!
There is a very sophisticated process going on here, akin to a war.
Apple has a strategy and has positioned itself with supplies, manufacturers, and internal R&D (iOS, chip design, battery design, case design, etc..
The competition has no strategy only tactics -- get something out there, soon!
I suspect:
-- that Apple has several prototype iPads in the wings (potentially, including a 7-incher).
-- If the need arises, Apple can gear up and demo, whatever, within a month
-- they could ramp up production, to, say, 1.2 million units per month in 90 days
... and go from there... if the need arises.
That should be sufficient for Apple to maintain their competitive lead.
Reportedly, the Samsung Galaxy Tab is the biggest competitor to the iPad.
Somewhere, Samsung was reported as saying that they planned to build 100,000 Galaxy Tabs per month through the next 12 months.
Now, Samsung has access to parts and production facilities (Samsung makes most of the expensive, specialty parts in the Tab) -- yet they plan to make less in a year than the number of iPads made in a month,
Why?
Some claim the Rim PlayBook is to be a major competitor -- early next year. Who will manufacture the Dual-core A9 ARM * chip and the 1 GB of RAM chips (and whatever GPU chip). And in what quantity.
Does Rim have the parts, manufacturing and distribution facilities, lined up, to deliver even 100,000 per month? If they can't -- can Rim make any profit on the PlayBook (or even recover R&D costs)?
* ARM Holdings has very intricate licensing as to who can modify their designs and who can build the chips.
The $499 iPad costs Apple $264 in parts.
Lets say, the $499 PlayBook costs the same.
If you assume that the remaining $235 is all profit (for Rim), and assume they can deliver 100,000 PlayBooks per month...
Rim would make a gross profit of $282 Million (US) on the PlayBook in its first year.
Now, for a little reality:
-- Assume the Dual-Core A9 costs twice as much as the A4 in those quantities
-- Assume the 1GB RAM cost at least 4 times as much as the 256 MB RAM in the iPad
-- Assume a high-end (unannounced) GPU that costs more than the iPad GPU
-- Assume all other comparable parts will be more expensive at those quantities
So, the PlayBook costs, likely, will be a lot higher than the iPad's $265-- and the profit per unit in the $100-$200 range.
Now, does anyone believe that Rim will sell even 1 million PlayBooks in 12 months?
You seem to be the kind of person that looks for reasons (excuses) that something can't be done.
Thankfully, there are people that look for a way to something rather than make excuses..
These 2 guys wanted a tripod mount for an iPhone 4. They thought there was a market for it. They did their research and setout to raise funding to satisfy the need -- they wanted to raise $10,000. When the funding period ended they had raised $137,417.
I will promise you this: If I buy an iPad with a camera that warrants a tripod mount and none is forthcoming -- I will build it myself and call it the:
TriPad? iPad tripod mount.
.
Carrying all that just to take photos with an iPad seems like a kludge to me. Whatever floats your boat. I like simplicity and elegance.
I guess that history has proven you right because the only major products that Apple currently sells are the fully-baked products below:
-- the 1977 Apple ][
-- the 1984 128K Macintosh
-- the 2001 original iPod
-- the 2007 iPhone (gen 1)
Obviously there has been no need for any improvements or follow-on products.
One could distinguish between newly enabled technologies and technologies that were perfectoy possible, but decided against. If one were to do that, some might maintain that a camera or three on the iPad fits the latter category.
Does Rim have the parts, manufacturing and distribution facilities, lined up, to deliver even 100,000 per month?
.
Why wouldn't a company as competent as RIM have their manufacturing lined up? I have no opinion on the number you quote, but whatever it is, I'd be surprised if RIM had not properly planned things out.
Why do you believe that to be the case for this particular product?
Why wouldn't a company as competent as RIM have their manufacturing lined up? I have no opinion on the number you quote, but whatever it is, I'd be surprised if RIM had not properly planned things out.
Why do you believe that to be the case for this particular product?
Do a search for:
availability A9 dual-core ARM
and see what's available-- and who produces it -- and in what quantity -- and to what other companies do they supply parts and production facilities.
If we knew the designation of the high-end GPU we could search for that too.
All we do know (according to Rim) its not the GPU found on the only Dual-core A9 found above.
You do understand that the need for a Dual-core A9, 1GB RAM and High-end GPU is largely necessary to support the HD Video, unlimited multitasking, Flash, and AIR (Flash) GUI on the PlayBook.
The other tablets have fewer and much more available parts (at much lower costs).
I believe that Rim has spec'd itself into a corner -- I don't believe they will be able to deliver enough product to make a profit (even if the demand were there).
OTOH, Apple could release an iPad 2 in quantity, using off the shelf parts -- and beat the important benefits of the PlayBook. And do it at lower price and higher profit!
Then there is the story about the woman who was married 3 times. but is still a virgin.
Her 1st husband tripped over her bridal-train while leaving the alter, hit his head on a pew, and was killed instantly.
Her 2nd husband was an octogenarian who died of a heart attack while getting undressed for the wedding night.
Her 3rd husband is a Rim PlayBook salesman -- every night he stands at the foot of the bed and tells her how good it's going to be -- when she finally gets it!
I just can't see them adding a rear camera on the iPad2. It seems so out of place. Sure, it'll be easy to do it, and maybe makes sense for FaceTime, to have dual cameras... But very odd to have an additional rear camera on a big tablet.
I hope reduced weight is the primary goal here.
Would you like reduced weight or reduced "user" time? I'm pretty sure we'll have the camera's... even though I have no use for them.
and see what's available-- and who produces it -- and in what quantity -- and to what other companies do they supply parts and production facilities.
If we knew the designation of the high-end GPU we could search for that too.
All we do know (according to Rim) its not the GPU found on the only Dual-core A9 found above.
You do understand that the need for a Dual-core A9, 1GB RAM and High-end GPU is largely necessary to support the HD Video, unlimited multitasking, Flash, and AIR (Flash) GUI on the PlayBook.
The other tablets have fewer and much more available parts (at much lower costs).
I believe that Rim has spec'd itself into a corner -- I don't believe they will be able to deliver enough product to make a profit (even if the demand were there).
OTOH, Apple could release an iPad 2 in quantity, using off the shelf parts -- and beat the important benefits of the PlayBook. And do it at lower price and higher profit!
Then there is the story about the woman who was married 3 times. but is still a virgin.
Her 1st husband tripped over her bridal-train while leaving the alter, hit his head on a pew, and was killed instantly.
Her 2nd husband was an octogenarian who died of a heart attack while getting undressed for the wedding night.
Her 3rd husband is a Rim PlayBook salesman -- every night he stands at the foot of the bed and tells her how good it's going to be -- when she finally gets it!
.
From what my IT guy told me is that RIM has the patent on instant e-mail notification. Please let me know if that's not entirely true.,, Thanks!
Comments
The iPad has no tripod mount. I'm not sure why you brought that up. It seems to prove the point you argue against.
Pointing out that the iPad has no tripod mount is akin to pointing out that it has no built-in handle or screen cover. Of course it has no tripod mount. But there's no reason that a third party could not build some sort of tripod mount for the iPad?I would not be surprised to see variations crop up once a camera-enabled iPad is introduced.
Each of these photo tasks would work better with a 7 inch widescreen, IMO. Apple designed the iPad correctly, for the vast majority of consumers.
These sorts of specialized things would work best with a different device, and would not work well with an iPad. If any of that was viable, Apple would have included a rear-facing camera. They don't issue half-baked products.
I guess that history has proven you right because the only major products that Apple currently sells are the fully-baked products below:
-- the 1977 Apple ][
-- the 1984 128K Macintosh
-- the 2001 original iPod
-- the 2007 iPhone (gen 1)
Obviously there has been no need for any improvements or follow-on products.
Exactly. Even if Apple could have prepared iPad Version 2 for a late-fall debut, this way the competition will be preparing for an assault on the current iPad but by the time their plans are finalized, Apple will unleash a significantly upgraded iPad. It will be quite a few months before the competition can respond to that product and by the time they do, Apple will be close to bringing out iPad Version 3.
This is more or less what happened with the media player space and we all know how that turned out.
Agreed. "iPod" has pretty much become a generic shorthand for "portable music player", the way "Xerox" has become the generic shorthand for "photocopier" or "making photo copies". We're nearly 10 years into the iPod's entry into the world, and it has virtually no peers.
That would be pretty awesome if "iPad" became a generic shorthand for "tablet computing device".
I think the key to Apple's success is that they basically don't look at the competition. They design stuff that they think is cool?that they would want to use themselves. HP, Samsung, RIM, et al, are trying to design the "iPad killer", which is really a counterproductive approach, as it serves only to draw more attention to the iPad as the tablet archetype?the product that pundits and consumers will compare everything else to.
When I see those promo videos featuring Jonny Ive, Tim Cook, Phil Schiller and others talking about the iPad, the new MBA, etc., I know that it's carefully scripted marketing, but I also have a strong sense that they actually believe what they're saying. As my boss told me the other day, "If you speak passionately about your work, then people will be drawn to it."
I guess that history has proven you right because the only major products that Apple currently sells are the fully-baked products below:
-- the 1977 Apple ][
-- the 1984 128K Macintosh
-- the 2001 original iPod
-- the 2007 iPhone (gen 1)
Obviously there has been no need for any improvements or follow-on products.
Hey, don't diss the 128K Mac. It got me through Jr. High and High School!
Exactly. Even if Apple could have prepared iPad Version 2 for a late-fall debut, this way the competition will be preparing for an assault on the current iPad but by the time their plans are finalized, Apple will unleash a significantly upgraded iPad. It will be quite a few months before the competition can respond to that product and by the time they do, Apple will be close to bringing out iPad Version 3.
This is more or less what happened with the media player space and we all know how that turned out.
Exactly!
There is a very sophisticated process going on here, akin to a war.
Apple has a strategy and has positioned itself with supplies, manufacturers, and internal R&D (iOS, chip design, battery design, case design, etc..
The competition has no strategy only tactics -- get something out there, soon!
I suspect:
-- that Apple has several prototype iPads in the wings (potentially, including a 7-incher).
-- If the need arises, Apple can gear up and demo, whatever, within a month
-- they could ramp up production, to, say, 1.2 million units per month in 90 days
... and go from there... if the need arises.
That should be sufficient for Apple to maintain their competitive lead.
Reportedly, the Samsung Galaxy Tab is the biggest competitor to the iPad.
Somewhere, Samsung was reported as saying that they planned to build 100,000 Galaxy Tabs per month through the next 12 months.
Now, Samsung has access to parts and production facilities (Samsung makes most of the expensive, specialty parts in the Tab) -- yet they plan to make less in a year than the number of iPads made in a month,
Why?
Some claim the Rim PlayBook is to be a major competitor -- early next year. Who will manufacture the Dual-core A9 ARM * chip and the 1 GB of RAM chips (and whatever GPU chip). And in what quantity.
Does Rim have the parts, manufacturing and distribution facilities, lined up, to deliver even 100,000 per month? If they can't -- can Rim make any profit on the PlayBook (or even recover R&D costs)?
* ARM Holdings has very intricate licensing as to who can modify their designs and who can build the chips.
The $499 iPad costs Apple $264 in parts.
Lets say, the $499 PlayBook costs the same.
If you assume that the remaining $235 is all profit (for Rim), and assume they can deliver 100,000 PlayBooks per month...
Rim would make a gross profit of $282 Million (US) on the PlayBook in its first year.
Now, for a little reality:
-- Assume the Dual-Core A9 costs twice as much as the A4 in those quantities
-- Assume the 1GB RAM cost at least 4 times as much as the 256 MB RAM in the iPad
-- Assume a high-end (unannounced) GPU that costs more than the iPad GPU
-- Assume all other comparable parts will be more expensive at those quantities
So, the PlayBook costs, likely, will be a lot higher than the iPad's $265-- and the profit per unit in the $100-$200 range.
Now, does anyone believe that Rim will sell even 1 million PlayBooks in 12 months?
To whom?
.
The iP4 had no tripod mount either -- but, I have one on order:
http://theglif.com/
You seem to be the kind of person that looks for reasons (excuses) that something can't be done.
Thankfully, there are people that look for a way to something rather than make excuses..
These 2 guys wanted a tripod mount for an iPhone 4. They thought there was a market for it. They did their research and setout to raise funding to satisfy the need -- they wanted to raise $10,000. When the funding period ended they had raised $137,417.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...stand/comments
I will promise you this: If I buy an iPad with a camera that warrants a tripod mount and none is forthcoming -- I will build it myself and call it the:
TriPad? iPad tripod mount.
.
Carrying all that just to take photos with an iPad seems like a kludge to me. Whatever floats your boat. I like simplicity and elegance.
I guess that history has proven you right because the only major products that Apple currently sells are the fully-baked products below:
-- the 1977 Apple ][
-- the 1984 128K Macintosh
-- the 2001 original iPod
-- the 2007 iPhone (gen 1)
Obviously there has been no need for any improvements or follow-on products.
One could distinguish between newly enabled technologies and technologies that were perfectoy possible, but decided against. If one were to do that, some might maintain that a camera or three on the iPad fits the latter category.
Does Rim have the parts, manufacturing and distribution facilities, lined up, to deliver even 100,000 per month?
.
Why wouldn't a company as competent as RIM have their manufacturing lined up? I have no opinion on the number you quote, but whatever it is, I'd be surprised if RIM had not properly planned things out.
Why do you believe that to be the case for this particular product?
Hey, don't diss the 128K Mac. It got me through Jr. High and High School!
Hey, if you lived anywhere around Silicon Valley -- I, likely, sold it to you [your parents].
Why wouldn't a company as competent as RIM have their manufacturing lined up? I have no opinion on the number you quote, but whatever it is, I'd be surprised if RIM had not properly planned things out.
Why do you believe that to be the case for this particular product?
Do a search for:
availability A9 dual-core ARM
and see what's available-- and who produces it -- and in what quantity -- and to what other companies do they supply parts and production facilities.
If we knew the designation of the high-end GPU we could search for that too.
All we do know (according to Rim) its not the GPU found on the only Dual-core A9 found above.
You do understand that the need for a Dual-core A9, 1GB RAM and High-end GPU is largely necessary to support the HD Video, unlimited multitasking, Flash, and AIR (Flash) GUI on the PlayBook.
The other tablets have fewer and much more available parts (at much lower costs).
I believe that Rim has spec'd itself into a corner -- I don't believe they will be able to deliver enough product to make a profit (even if the demand were there).
OTOH, Apple could release an iPad 2 in quantity, using off the shelf parts -- and beat the important benefits of the PlayBook. And do it at lower price and higher profit!
Then there is the story about the woman who was married 3 times. but is still a virgin.
Her 1st husband tripped over her bridal-train while leaving the alter, hit his head on a pew, and was killed instantly.
Her 2nd husband was an octogenarian who died of a heart attack while getting undressed for the wedding night.
Her 3rd husband is a Rim PlayBook salesman -- every night he stands at the foot of the bed and tells her how good it's going to be -- when she finally gets it!
.
Hey, if you lived anywhere around Silicon Valley -- I, likely, sold it to you [your parents].
In gratitude, Sir, I doff my hat!
In gratitude, Sir, I doff my hat!
Computer Plus 1978 - 1989
Sunnyvale -- Fremont and Mary
San Jose -- Hamilton and Meridian
I just can't see them adding a rear camera on the iPad2. It seems so out of place. Sure, it'll be easy to do it, and maybe makes sense for FaceTime, to have dual cameras... But very odd to have an additional rear camera on a big tablet.
I hope reduced weight is the primary goal here.
Would you like reduced weight or reduced "user" time? I'm pretty sure we'll have the camera's... even though I have no use for them.
Do a search for:
availability A9 dual-core ARM
and see what's available-- and who produces it -- and in what quantity -- and to what other companies do they supply parts and production facilities.
If we knew the designation of the high-end GPU we could search for that too.
All we do know (according to Rim) its not the GPU found on the only Dual-core A9 found above.
You do understand that the need for a Dual-core A9, 1GB RAM and High-end GPU is largely necessary to support the HD Video, unlimited multitasking, Flash, and AIR (Flash) GUI on the PlayBook.
The other tablets have fewer and much more available parts (at much lower costs).
I believe that Rim has spec'd itself into a corner -- I don't believe they will be able to deliver enough product to make a profit (even if the demand were there).
OTOH, Apple could release an iPad 2 in quantity, using off the shelf parts -- and beat the important benefits of the PlayBook. And do it at lower price and higher profit!
Then there is the story about the woman who was married 3 times. but is still a virgin.
Her 1st husband tripped over her bridal-train while leaving the alter, hit his head on a pew, and was killed instantly.
Her 2nd husband was an octogenarian who died of a heart attack while getting undressed for the wedding night.
Her 3rd husband is a Rim PlayBook salesman -- every night he stands at the foot of the bed and tells her how good it's going to be -- when she finally gets it!
.
From what my IT guy told me is that RIM has the patent on instant e-mail notification. Please let me know if that's not entirely true.,, Thanks!