There are still a lot of supposedly brilliant people, critics and pundits that claim the iPad is one of the most useless devices that was ever made and that absolutely no one has any use for one after spending more than an hour with it. They'd prefer if those kiosks were running Windows netbooks because the Windows netbook can do so much more for anyone who uses it. This is the sort of attitude that is rather amazing. Consumers and businesses are using them all the time and yet iPads are still being claimed to be useless devices. You have to wonder why there are so many idiots in this world that continue to make statements like that. \
Where do you see evidence of this? Any evidence at all?
You're already seeing it with the Nook Color and Kindle Fire, both of which would almost be considered premium considering the even cheaper Archos & Viewsonic's.
Want to get really cheap but with still decent quality? Ainol's Novo7 (7" display) comes in under $100, but already uses Android 4.0 on a 1GHz single-core MIPS processor. OK battery life too, quoted at 8 hours of video playtime, 7 hours of web-browsing. The Dr's right. Specialized use tablets with pre-loaded content (GameStop's giving it a go) and inexpensive media consumption slates are going to change a lot of purchasing decisions IMO.
I think this is probably true in many of the enterprise zones where Apple products have begun to appear and multiply. In fact you could probably replace "aviation" in the last two sentences with almost any other business --
"The company is fundamentally mistrusted by many in X. Apple has been fortunate in that the killer X apps have appeared first on the iOS platform."
-- and the statement would be equally true. Justly or not, Apple has a longstanding rep for making things for your kids to play with. Once an idea like this gets entrenched, it's hard to dislodge. By all accounts, for example, RIM's management took it as an article of faith (and corporate strategy) that their own tablet would be embraced as a serious working tool by professionals. "Amateur hour is over", right? And one sees this attitude right now in comments about the (vaporish) Windows tablets that are going to finally let people get real work done.
Maybe there's an opening for Android here, but who is going to exploit it? As Dr Millmoss points out, apps for iOS already exist. Developers have no incentive to port or create apps when the Android tablet user base is all but nonexistent. Android OEMS are hardware makers. Google has other priorities. Recent experience has shown that when you give Apple this kind of lead, it's awfully hard to catch up.
"The RIM PlayBook is the real deal. It's exactly what enterprises are waiting for. iPads are just toys and no good for anything else except playing games." How many jackasses made that claim and now you can't even give those PlayBooks away? There are far too many retarded people who are in charge of running the enterprise computing platforms.
If the tablet comes with the software preinstalled, then updates are probably not an issue. Keep in mind, I'm talking single purpose, such as the kiosk function discussed in this article. An Android OEM could probably manufacture a tablet that does this one thing well enough and sell it for a price far lower than Apple does, or even can. It becomes disposable tech, good for a year or two, like most mobile phones are already.
Even with a pre-installed app, I seriously doubt any company that deals with its customers safety or privacy would trust gear that doesn't get regular security patches.
Even with a pre-installed app, I seriously doubt any company that deals with its customers safety or privacy would trust gear that doesn't get regular security patches.
The US military is adopting Android-compatible smartphones as their official choice, and the intelligence agencies are probably close to the same decision. They won't be reliant on Google updates like Android 4.0 either, so that's of no real concern to them.
Even tho approval for iPhones and iPads may follow at some point, "approval for these two may come nine months to a year from now. He mentioned that Apple has yet to demonstrate high level of security in its supply chain"
Where do you see evidence of this? Any evidence at all?
Southeast Asia.
Same with Android handsets. That's where the bulk of the activations these days are coming from: inexpensive handsets from companies like Huawei, Pantech, ZTC, etc. that aren't being used as traditional smartphones but are mostly being used as touchscreen feature phones, calling and texting, but little else in terms of app downloads and usage.
Same with Android handsets. That's where the bulk of the activations these days are coming from: inexpensive handsets from companies like Huawei, Pantech, ZTC, etc. that aren't being used as traditional smartphones but are mostly being used as touchscreen feature phones, calling and texting, but little else in terms of app downloads and usage.
Even some high-end Android handsets can attract lines overseas. The Chinese in particular are infatuated with smartphones, Android and iOS alike
The US military is adopting Android-compatible smartphones as their official choice, and the intelligence agencies are probably close to the same decision. They won't be reliant on Google updates like Android 4.0 either, so that's of no real concern to them.
Even tho approval for iPhones and iPads may follow at some point, "approval for these two may come nine months to a year from now. He mentioned that Apple has yet to demonstrate high level of security in its supply chain"
I had read that previously but wanted to make sure I reread them before responding. Those android phones are being put on the government's own private network as opposed to commercial cell service. I think that's a completely different animal than a hospital or an airline. I doubt Delta wants to create its own ubiquitous cell network just to adopt android tablets.
You're already seeing it with the Nook Color and Kindle Fire, both of which would almost be considered premium considering the even cheaper Archos & Viewsonic's.
Want to get really cheap but with still decent quality? Ainol's Novo7 (7" display) comes in under $100, but already uses Android 4.0 on a 1GHz single-core MIPS processor. OK battery life too, quoted at 8 hours of video playtime, 7 hours of web-browsing. The Dr's right. Specialized use tablets with pre-loaded content (GameStop's giving it a go) and inexpensive media consumption slates are going to change a lot of purchasing decisions IMO.
The question in my mind isn't if, or when, but how much, and what Apple can do to defend its turf. It may well come to pass that Apple continues to reign as king of the general purpose tablet but will at the same time be competing with many limited or single-purpose Android tablets in endless permutations nibbling around the edges. Could be rough going, and maybe now we're seeing why Steve was so intent on defeating Android on an intellectual property basis.
The question in my mind isn't if, or when, but how much, and what Apple can do to defend its turf. It may well come to pass that Apple continues to reign as king of the general purpose tablet but will at the same time be competing with many limited or single-purpose Android tablets in endless permutations nibbling around the edges. Could be rough going, and maybe now we're seeing why Steve was so intent on defeating Android on an intellectual property basis.
If that's the case, then why couldn't Dell translate its massive corporate client list into tablet sales? If hundreds of businesses trust their desktop/laptop computing to Dell, surely those companies would trust it for tablet purchases and deployment which would have kept the product going before consumer takeoff occurred. Instead, it made no headway and killed their android products off.
I had read that previously but wanted to make sure I reread them before responding. Those android phones are being put on the government's own private network as opposed to commercial cell service. I think that's a completely different animal than a hospital or an airline. I doubt Delta wants to create its own ubiquitous cell network just to adopt android tablets.
The hospital kiosk application discussed in this article seems dead simple to me, and hardly requiring an iPad by definition (we're talking about visitor checkin and information). On the more complex end of the scale, I can see a company with long aviation data experience such as Garmin or Jeppesen building a dedicated tablet around Android. Probably a lot of these efforts will fail, but likely some will succeed. A high casualty rate doesn't hurt Android or Google, but a few notable successes will sure hurt Apple.
I had read that previously but wanted to make sure I reread them before responding. Those android phones are being put on the government's own private network as opposed to commercial cell service. I think that's a completely different animal than a hospital or an airline. I doubt Delta wants to create its own ubiquitous cell network just to adopt android tablets.
But that's the point the Dr. was making. The US government won't care if Samsung or HTC rolls out an update. Neither would many firms where security is a prime concern. In fact for those types of clients which might include power plants, certain chemical companies, DoD-contracted suppliers and designers as well as others, Apple's products might be poor choices. That's for the "specialized" tablets that fit the Dr's description.
Just like the military and intelligence agencies, they often need very specialized and secure communications devices. Android can provide that customization required. Others' may have a very limited use product or need where access to outside communications needs to be extremely limited or perhaps non-existent. That's not where Apple probably needs or wants to go from appearances and history. Their focus is on the individual users and enterprises that can comfortably work in their curated ecosystem, where security is "good enough". For companies and organizations having very specialized uses, or those that need highly secure systems, Android would make the better choice, at least for now IMO.
The hospital kiosk application discussed in this article seems dead simple to me, and hardly requiring an iPad by definition (we're talking about visitor checkin and information). On the more complex end of the scale, I can see a company with long aviation data experience such as Garmin or Jeppesen building a dedicated tablet around Android. Probably a lot of these efforts will fail, but likely some will succeed. A high casualty rate doesn't hurt Android or Google, but a few notable successes will sure hurt Apple.
I suppose I could see a Garmin android tablet that was a fork that locked out many other services, but that goes back to my initial point about customer service coming from the company selling it.
If that's the case, then why couldn't Dell translate its massive corporate client list into tablet sales? If hundreds of businesses trust their desktop/laptop computing to Dell, surely those companies would trust it for tablet purchases and deployment which would have kept the product going before consumer takeoff occurred. Instead, it made no headway and killed their android products off.
Because Dell is inept? Counting on the ineptitude of your competitors is a poor business plan.
Besides, what I am talking about here is vertical markets. I suspect that Apple is in a very good position to remain the dominant force in general purpose tablet computing for the next couple of years at least. But I'd also predict that Apple is going to have a hard time defending its turf in the vertical markets.
Because Dell is inept? Counting on the ineptitude of your competitors is a poor business plan.
.
I may be an Apple fan but even I'll admit that it is miles away from where Dell is in the corporate market so it can't be that dang inept. There has to be a reason that a company that spends millions with Dell for computers and support wouldn't touch their Android tablets and chalking it up to ineptitude doesn't make sense.
Walk into a grocery store. Your iPhone beeps, pulling up your grocery list Reminder.
"Siri, find the items on my list."
"First item: [Brand Name] Pasta: Aisle 3."
So you get your pasta.
"Next item, Siri."
"Second item: Skim Milk: Aisle 12. Your fourth item is in Aisle 6, between here and there."
"Thanks, Siri."
And so on.
Supermarkets don't want customers to find things quickly. They would prefer that you cruise up and down the aisles and pick up unplanned items while you are searching. That is one reason supermarkets reorganize every couple of years. After many decades of existence, they are certainly aware of the organization that would be most efficient for customers, and they could implement it and leave it alone if they wanted. I don't think they would cooperate with your scenario.
I may be an Apple fan but even I'll admit that it is miles away from where Dell is in the corporate market so it can't be that dang inept. There has to be a reason that a company that spends millions with Dell for computers and support wouldn't touch their Android tablets and chalking it up to ineptitude doesn't make sense.
Dell has a historically poor track record when they have attempted to step away from their core competency, which we should not forget, is cranking out Windows boxes at competitive prices.
But you deleted the second half of my comment, which was the main point I've been trying to make since the start.
Dell has a historically poor track record when they have attempted to step away from their core competency, which we should not forget, is cranking out Windows boxes at competitive prices.
But you deleted the second half of my comment, which was the main point I've been trying to make since the start.
Dell is still selling waaaay more computers to enterprise than Apple does and the only logical conclusion on why those businesses didn't purchase tablets from them is that there were issues with the product itself. If it were Dell itself that was the problem then I'd expect we would see some mass exodus of its client base to some other windows oem and even if that is happening as we speak THAT oem would be selling those same companies tablets in large quantities (which hasn't and isn't happening thus far).
As for your comment on verticle markets competing against Apple in the tablet space, what players are verticle? HP with WebOS was but that's dead. Blackberry is one but the playbook is basically dead too. All the others (whether they fork android or not) aren't vertical because at some point they had to rely on google (or windows although windows tablets are a rounding error at this point) for software to even have a tablet to sell.
Supermarkets don't want customers to find things quickly. They would prefer that you cruise up and down the aisles and pick up unplanned items while you are searching.
When every other service industry is doing it, they'll be forced to for the good of the customer and their own reputation. That's the Apple way.
Quote:
That is one reason supermarkets reorganize every couple of years.
Comments
Where do you see evidence of this? Any evidence at all?
You're already seeing it with the Nook Color and Kindle Fire, both of which would almost be considered premium considering the even cheaper Archos & Viewsonic's.
Want to get really cheap but with still decent quality? Ainol's Novo7 (7" display) comes in under $100, but already uses Android 4.0 on a 1GHz single-core MIPS processor. OK battery life too, quoted at 8 hours of video playtime, 7 hours of web-browsing. The Dr's right. Specialized use tablets with pre-loaded content (GameStop's giving it a go) and inexpensive media consumption slates are going to change a lot of purchasing decisions IMO.
I think this is probably true in many of the enterprise zones where Apple products have begun to appear and multiply. In fact you could probably replace "aviation" in the last two sentences with almost any other business --
"The company is fundamentally mistrusted by many in X. Apple has been fortunate in that the killer X apps have appeared first on the iOS platform."
-- and the statement would be equally true. Justly or not, Apple has a longstanding rep for making things for your kids to play with. Once an idea like this gets entrenched, it's hard to dislodge. By all accounts, for example, RIM's management took it as an article of faith (and corporate strategy) that their own tablet would be embraced as a serious working tool by professionals. "Amateur hour is over", right? And one sees this attitude right now in comments about the (vaporish) Windows tablets that are going to finally let people get real work done.
Maybe there's an opening for Android here, but who is going to exploit it? As Dr Millmoss points out, apps for iOS already exist. Developers have no incentive to port or create apps when the Android tablet user base is all but nonexistent. Android OEMS are hardware makers. Google has other priorities. Recent experience has shown that when you give Apple this kind of lead, it's awfully hard to catch up.
"The RIM PlayBook is the real deal. It's exactly what enterprises are waiting for. iPads are just toys and no good for anything else except playing games." How many jackasses made that claim and now you can't even give those PlayBooks away? There are far too many retarded people who are in charge of running the enterprise computing platforms.
Kindle Fire, $199. A sign of things to come.
Ah. So when you refer to a "commodity", you mean something unlike anything else available?
I think that I may stick to the Chicago Merc's definition, as your usage is "typical" when employing the concept of commodity.
If the tablet comes with the software preinstalled, then updates are probably not an issue. Keep in mind, I'm talking single purpose, such as the kiosk function discussed in this article. An Android OEM could probably manufacture a tablet that does this one thing well enough and sell it for a price far lower than Apple does, or even can. It becomes disposable tech, good for a year or two, like most mobile phones are already.
Even with a pre-installed app, I seriously doubt any company that deals with its customers safety or privacy would trust gear that doesn't get regular security patches.
Even with a pre-installed app, I seriously doubt any company that deals with its customers safety or privacy would trust gear that doesn't get regular security patches.
The US military is adopting Android-compatible smartphones as their official choice, and the intelligence agencies are probably close to the same decision. They won't be reliant on Google updates like Android 4.0 either, so that's of no real concern to them.
http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/18/2...-army-networks
http://www.androidauthority.com/u-s-...es-soon-33588/
Even tho approval for iPhones and iPads may follow at some point, "approval for these two may come nine months to a year from now. He mentioned that Apple has yet to demonstrate high level of security in its supply chain"
Where do you see evidence of this? Any evidence at all?
Southeast Asia.
Same with Android handsets. That's where the bulk of the activations these days are coming from: inexpensive handsets from companies like Huawei, Pantech, ZTC, etc. that aren't being used as traditional smartphones but are mostly being used as touchscreen feature phones, calling and texting, but little else in terms of app downloads and usage.
Southeast Asia.
Same with Android handsets. That's where the bulk of the activations these days are coming from: inexpensive handsets from companies like Huawei, Pantech, ZTC, etc. that aren't being used as traditional smartphones but are mostly being used as touchscreen feature phones, calling and texting, but little else in terms of app downloads and usage.
Even some high-end Android handsets can attract lines overseas. The Chinese in particular are infatuated with smartphones, Android and iOS alike
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/01/m...hina-as-usual/
The US military is adopting Android-compatible smartphones as their official choice, and the intelligence agencies are probably close to the same decision. They won't be reliant on Google updates like Android 4.0 either, so that's of no real concern to them.
http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/18/2...-army-networks
http://www.androidauthority.com/u-s-...es-soon-33588/
Even tho approval for iPhones and iPads may follow at some point, "approval for these two may come nine months to a year from now. He mentioned that Apple has yet to demonstrate high level of security in its supply chain"
I had read that previously but wanted to make sure I reread them before responding. Those android phones are being put on the government's own private network as opposed to commercial cell service. I think that's a completely different animal than a hospital or an airline. I doubt Delta wants to create its own ubiquitous cell network just to adopt android tablets.
You're already seeing it with the Nook Color and Kindle Fire, both of which would almost be considered premium considering the even cheaper Archos & Viewsonic's.
Want to get really cheap but with still decent quality? Ainol's Novo7 (7" display) comes in under $100, but already uses Android 4.0 on a 1GHz single-core MIPS processor. OK battery life too, quoted at 8 hours of video playtime, 7 hours of web-browsing. The Dr's right. Specialized use tablets with pre-loaded content (GameStop's giving it a go) and inexpensive media consumption slates are going to change a lot of purchasing decisions IMO.
The question in my mind isn't if, or when, but how much, and what Apple can do to defend its turf. It may well come to pass that Apple continues to reign as king of the general purpose tablet but will at the same time be competing with many limited or single-purpose Android tablets in endless permutations nibbling around the edges. Could be rough going, and maybe now we're seeing why Steve was so intent on defeating Android on an intellectual property basis.
The question in my mind isn't if, or when, but how much, and what Apple can do to defend its turf. It may well come to pass that Apple continues to reign as king of the general purpose tablet but will at the same time be competing with many limited or single-purpose Android tablets in endless permutations nibbling around the edges. Could be rough going, and maybe now we're seeing why Steve was so intent on defeating Android on an intellectual property basis.
If that's the case, then why couldn't Dell translate its massive corporate client list into tablet sales? If hundreds of businesses trust their desktop/laptop computing to Dell, surely those companies would trust it for tablet purchases and deployment which would have kept the product going before consumer takeoff occurred. Instead, it made no headway and killed their android products off.
I had read that previously but wanted to make sure I reread them before responding. Those android phones are being put on the government's own private network as opposed to commercial cell service. I think that's a completely different animal than a hospital or an airline. I doubt Delta wants to create its own ubiquitous cell network just to adopt android tablets.
The hospital kiosk application discussed in this article seems dead simple to me, and hardly requiring an iPad by definition (we're talking about visitor checkin and information). On the more complex end of the scale, I can see a company with long aviation data experience such as Garmin or Jeppesen building a dedicated tablet around Android. Probably a lot of these efforts will fail, but likely some will succeed. A high casualty rate doesn't hurt Android or Google, but a few notable successes will sure hurt Apple.
I had read that previously but wanted to make sure I reread them before responding. Those android phones are being put on the government's own private network as opposed to commercial cell service. I think that's a completely different animal than a hospital or an airline. I doubt Delta wants to create its own ubiquitous cell network just to adopt android tablets.
But that's the point the Dr. was making. The US government won't care if Samsung or HTC rolls out an update. Neither would many firms where security is a prime concern. In fact for those types of clients which might include power plants, certain chemical companies, DoD-contracted suppliers and designers as well as others, Apple's products might be poor choices. That's for the "specialized" tablets that fit the Dr's description.
Just like the military and intelligence agencies, they often need very specialized and secure communications devices. Android can provide that customization required. Others' may have a very limited use product or need where access to outside communications needs to be extremely limited or perhaps non-existent. That's not where Apple probably needs or wants to go from appearances and history. Their focus is on the individual users and enterprises that can comfortably work in their curated ecosystem, where security is "good enough". For companies and organizations having very specialized uses, or those that need highly secure systems, Android would make the better choice, at least for now IMO.
The hospital kiosk application discussed in this article seems dead simple to me, and hardly requiring an iPad by definition (we're talking about visitor checkin and information). On the more complex end of the scale, I can see a company with long aviation data experience such as Garmin or Jeppesen building a dedicated tablet around Android. Probably a lot of these efforts will fail, but likely some will succeed. A high casualty rate doesn't hurt Android or Google, but a few notable successes will sure hurt Apple.
I suppose I could see a Garmin android tablet that was a fork that locked out many other services, but that goes back to my initial point about customer service coming from the company selling it.
If that's the case, then why couldn't Dell translate its massive corporate client list into tablet sales? If hundreds of businesses trust their desktop/laptop computing to Dell, surely those companies would trust it for tablet purchases and deployment which would have kept the product going before consumer takeoff occurred. Instead, it made no headway and killed their android products off.
Because Dell is inept? Counting on the ineptitude of your competitors is a poor business plan.
Besides, what I am talking about here is vertical markets. I suspect that Apple is in a very good position to remain the dominant force in general purpose tablet computing for the next couple of years at least. But I'd also predict that Apple is going to have a hard time defending its turf in the vertical markets.
Because Dell is inept? Counting on the ineptitude of your competitors is a poor business plan.
.
I may be an Apple fan but even I'll admit that it is miles away from where Dell is in the corporate market so it can't be that dang inept. There has to be a reason that a company that spends millions with Dell for computers and support wouldn't touch their Android tablets and chalking it up to ineptitude doesn't make sense.
Oh, man, the possibilities are ENDLESS!
Walk into a grocery store. Your iPhone beeps, pulling up your grocery list Reminder.
"Siri, find the items on my list."
"First item: [Brand Name] Pasta: Aisle 3."
So you get your pasta.
"Next item, Siri."
"Second item: Skim Milk: Aisle 12. Your fourth item is in Aisle 6, between here and there."
"Thanks, Siri."
And so on.
Supermarkets don't want customers to find things quickly. They would prefer that you cruise up and down the aisles and pick up unplanned items while you are searching. That is one reason supermarkets reorganize every couple of years. After many decades of existence, they are certainly aware of the organization that would be most efficient for customers, and they could implement it and leave it alone if they wanted. I don't think they would cooperate with your scenario.
I may be an Apple fan but even I'll admit that it is miles away from where Dell is in the corporate market so it can't be that dang inept. There has to be a reason that a company that spends millions with Dell for computers and support wouldn't touch their Android tablets and chalking it up to ineptitude doesn't make sense.
Dell has a historically poor track record when they have attempted to step away from their core competency, which we should not forget, is cranking out Windows boxes at competitive prices.
But you deleted the second half of my comment, which was the main point I've been trying to make since the start.
Dell has a historically poor track record when they have attempted to step away from their core competency, which we should not forget, is cranking out Windows boxes at competitive prices.
But you deleted the second half of my comment, which was the main point I've been trying to make since the start.
Dell is still selling waaaay more computers to enterprise than Apple does and the only logical conclusion on why those businesses didn't purchase tablets from them is that there were issues with the product itself. If it were Dell itself that was the problem then I'd expect we would see some mass exodus of its client base to some other windows oem and even if that is happening as we speak THAT oem would be selling those same companies tablets in large quantities (which hasn't and isn't happening thus far).
As for your comment on verticle markets competing against Apple in the tablet space, what players are verticle? HP with WebOS was but that's dead. Blackberry is one but the playbook is basically dead too. All the others (whether they fork android or not) aren't vertical because at some point they had to rely on google (or windows although windows tablets are a rounding error at this point) for software to even have a tablet to sell.
Supermarkets don't want customers to find things quickly. They would prefer that you cruise up and down the aisles and pick up unplanned items while you are searching.
When every other service industry is doing it, they'll be forced to for the good of the customer and their own reputation. That's the Apple way.
That is one reason supermarkets reorganize every couple of years.
Huh. Mine must have missed that memo.