As I look at the extremely tight packaging on the Surface tablet, it makes me wonder if they can really keep an i5 or i7 chip cool enough to run well.
I'd wager the delay for the Core-i5 model is because the chips they are using, the 22nm chips, are only starting to sell this month. If MS wants premium pricing for what I assume is at least 100k units they'll have to wait a bit.
I see two units both priced at $225 having a 17W TDP which puts them in them squarely in the Ultabook range. They could still under clock them but it's hard to imagine MS doing that. The 11" MBA has 35 WHr battery whilst the x86 Surface running Win8 Pro has a 45 WHr battery so I'd say it's duration is likely comparable.
As I look at the extremely tight packaging on the Surface tablet, it makes me wonder if they can really keep an i5 or i7 chip cool enough to run well.
I am curious if they are just using the lower clocked i5/i7 that you would use in a macbook air? If Apple can keep that one cool enough to perform well, MS should be able to pull this off. maybe.
Or, they could have an XBox -melt the inside- issue. You never know with MS.
The Xbox was a disaster and MS had to replace nearly all of them, sometimes multiple times until they got it right. Few companies have the resources to take such a hit for a long time. Essentially, MS bought the business by filling a large hole with bad Xboxes.
I am curious if they are just using the lower clocked i5/i7 that you would use in a macbook air? If Apple can keep that one cool enough to perform well, MS should be able to pull this off. maybe.
Or, they could have an XBox -melt the inside- issue. You never know with MS.
High CPU or graphics intensive application require the user to blow in the side vents like it was a bass harmonica.
RT: $499 because they think it's better than the ipad.
Pro: $999 because they think it's better than the mba.
The fact that they haven't released the price shows that it's gonna be high. All they said was that it would be "comparable" to the prices of their competitors. They're trying to build excitement without disappointing people on price. When it's finally revealed, they're hoping the excitement drowns out the high prices. Had the prices been low, they'd have it plastered everywhere already.
I'm no expert, but I think the only way they'll succeed is on price. At $299 for the RT and $499 for the Pro, they'll sell. At the price they want to charge, I doubt it'll do better than a few million units at most.
I agree with you except for the quantity sold. The RT version will hit the market first, without much of a app selection. It will be buggy and many promised features will be "added soon." The MSspeak for "don't hold your breath." This will set the mood for the Intel version which will sell like bacon in an Arab market. Since these turds will only be dropped on the USA market, I project sales of them to be in the hundreds of thousands combined.
You really have to think of them as being only a "table top" device. With a floppy keyboard and kickstand they will be hell to use on your lap or in bed, in the car, or anywhere you don't have a flat surface to set them up; hence the name, SURFACE. But lets keep this in mind, the Intel Surface, while being a table top computer has no more speed or graphics power then the MBA. It is FAR from being a desk top computer in any way. So, compare it to an MBA, without a back-lit keyboard, about half the time away from a power source, and unusable in most the ways one would use a MBA. The SURFACE is more of proof-of-concept then a marketable device.
Bottom line: MS makes $78 operating profit per PC, Apple makes $178 per iPad. If PC growth stagnates, MS will see more pressure on their share. Taking profit from Apple won't work; the only rock they can squeeze is their OEM partners.
Those are definitely interesting numbers. And at first glance it looks like Apple is in a favorable position.
On the other hand... PC growth could stagnate or even shrink a bit... and Microsoft will still cash in on hundreds of millions of copies of Windows sold on PCs.
iPad sales are great... but PC sales are overwhelmingly high by comparison. Wasn't it 300 million last year? And how many of those were running Microsoft Windows @ $78 a pop?
Maybe in 5 or 10 years people will have no use for a standard PC running a Microsoft OS. But I can't even imagine a day going by where not a single Windows PC is sold.
as a long time windows user and mac user who enjoys both platforms I love this! Let customers see how great Windows is when it isnt fucked up by oem crapware.
also I think the intel version is very compelling, its what I wanted the iPad to be - a tablet when it makes sence, leaned back on the couch, on a plane or something, but a serious laptop when I need to really work...1 device, no need to have internet connections everywhere and rely on and trust a third party cloud serviceto ensure that my laptops documents are synced with my tablet.
Mr Greer, Microsoft has your back. They plan to charge only $99 to remove OEM Crapware in Windows 8.
Of course that boggles my mind when OS X 8 in July 2012 is only $19.95 in the Apple Mac App Store.
Mr Greer, do you plan to always sit at a desk with this Microsoft Surface so you can take advantage of that kickstand? I am sitting downstairs with a recent Mac Book Pro in my lap right now in a low light room. It is comfortable. The screen is bright and sharp. I can see the full stroke keys as they are backlighted also.
I seldom use the desk but that laptop travels all over. When I am not using it my wife grabs it and carries it to the kitchen and dinning room. She would never touch any of our high end Windows computers but she grabs the iPad or the MBP in a heart beat, for her every thing just works now.
Does this Microsoft Surface have all the features of what is known as the worlds best laptops?
Yes I know Microsoft now has a 'magsafe connector' like Apple. Do you think there will be legal anger over that which could prevent the Surface from even appearing in the USA?
Would a knowledgeable customer feel the Surface is an ugly compromise that can not even compare to the new ultra fast instant on Mac Book Air?
OK I also have an iPad 3 that I use while laying in bed. I can send the screen to a large HD TV across the room with Apple AirPlay. Does the Surface do all these things?
Does it even have a similar screen with an onscreen keyboard for use in bed or is it the wrong dimension for that?
BTW when I get into a new 2012 Toyota Hybrid Camry the phone and iPad instantly pair when I press the ON switch. I can control the iPad media with the media buttons on the left side of the steering wheel. Lets see I could have bought Ford's latest and greatest high tech but I noticed Ford came with Microsoft controls. Knowing what I do about Microsoft's OS reliability would I want to entrust my precious wife to a possible 'blue screen of death' while she was driving?
You may chuckle at that part of my decision process but did you see Ford's ranking plunged in JD Power's reliability ratings on Wednesday because of the very Microsoft features included in the Ford brand? I was right!
It will be a long way off before I again consider anything from Microsoft as a viable and reliable tool in the post PC era.
Is it true these Microsoft tablets also have a cooling fan? Has anybody ever heard of any tablet having a cooling fan before now?
That would have to impact battery life compared to the iPad, wouldn't it?
Anyone?
I think all Win tablet have had fans. That's a couple decades of failed tablets. Then there is the ModBook which used a fan. it was really the iPad that made a tablet viable without a fan.
My understanding is they have no fans, but multiple cooling ports around the perimeter that allow some type of convection cooling.
You could be right and that could be a clever thing to pull off with a 17W CPU which would deserve allocates but I assumed the perimeter vents just meant that no single placement of the hands would block all of the vents.
Maybe this is biased from the people I know. But this is a fact. More and more people are using Mac's in the Windows development world.
Will Microsoft Surface succeed to a certain degree? Personally? I don't think it will be any more successful then the Lumia 900 or 800. I hope it is though. The more competition there is the better it is for the end user.
Agreed. Competition is definitely what's needed. Unfortunately, Apple seems to have hit upon the idea that they can propel sales through novelty features, like Siri (http://jeff-with-a-g.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/siri-ously-apple-could-you-fix-this.html), rather than useful innovative features. Microsoft did the same with the Kinect. Does anybody know any regular consumer who didn't simply buy the Kinect for a laugh and now it's just sitting around gathering dust? Expect to see more of this trend from all sides.
Microsoft don't seem to have a clue when it comes to tablets. A pen? Seriously? And have they actually done any testing on that kickstand? The beauty of a laptop/netbook/ultrabook screen is that you can adjust the angle to suit your head position and to suit the ambient light. Oh, and you can also balance it on your lap and type while you're sitting on the sofa. The best iPad cases I've used have graduations in their stands so you can adjust the angle but even then they're far from perfect. Microsoft will sell a few of these things as people will fall for the "well, it does more than an iPad" line until they realise that "more" does not mean "better".
Typing on any tablet sucks so kudos to Microsoft for thinking of that one but what makes them think typing on a touch sensitive pad is going to be any better? Obviously they thought of that too as they have a proper keyboard for the Surface as well. Too bad what they didn't think of is "if you are doing lots of typing on a tablet then you are doing it wrong and should be using an ultrabook!"
Let's see what Google can offer next week. For starters, how about some protection from Microsoft for those that want to develop platforms based on Android? Or maybe they plan to pay the $5 Microsoft tax for every Google Xoom too?
Agreed. Competition is definitely what's needed. Unfortunately, Apple seems to have hit upon the idea that they can propel sales through novelty features, like Siri, rather than useful innovative features.
You mean the Siri that hasn't been on any iPad since it shipped in 2010 and the Siri that will only be available on iPad (3) with iOS 6 in a few months? That's the Siri to which you refer in a discussion about tablets?
You mean the Siri that hasn't been on any iPad since it shipped in 2010 and the Siri that will only be available on iPad (3) with iOS 6 in a few months? That's the Siri to which you refer in a discussion about tablets?
Yeah, that Siri. My point exactly.
There's no reason Siri couldn't be on the iPad 2 or the new iPad today (or the iPhone 4 for that matter) but instead Apple only makes the full release (remember the iOS 5 version is still a beta) available on certain hardware and only in the next iOS release. I was using it as an example of how Apple is starting to use novelties to drive sales rather than useful innovations (read my piece on why I think this is: http://jeff-with-a-g.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/apples-high-order-bit.html). It's a trend I think we will see more of at Apple simply because they don't have any real competition. Which is a shame because people often do their best work when they have to compete. That's what I think a lot of the press are hoping Microsoft will do with the Surface. Compete. Doesn't look like it's gonna pan out that way.
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Yeah, that Siri. My point exactly.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">There's no reason Siri couldn't be on the iPad 2 or the new iPad today (or the iPhone 4 for that matter) but instead Apple only makes the full release (remember the iOS 5 version is still a beta) available on certain hardware and only in the next iOS release. I was using it as an example of how Apple is starting to use novelties to drive sales rather than useful innovations (read my piece on why I think this is: http://jeff-with-a-g.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/apples-high-order-bit.html). It's a trend I think we will see more of at Apple simply because they don't have any real competition. Which is a shame because people often do their best work when they have to compete. That's what I think a lot of the press are hoping Microsoft will do with the Surface. Compete. Doesn't look like it's gonna pan out that way.</p>
1) Your point is that Apple has propelled the iPad sales to grow faster than any other product they've sold in the past, including the iPhone by not offering a feature for 3 generations of a product launch? Makes perfect sense¡
2) There are reasons why Siri can't be on every single device Apple makes. You need to alter your myopic view and realize that Siri is a server-side service, not a local one.
1) Your point is that Apple has propelled the iPad sales to grow faster than any other product they've sold in the past, including the iPhone by not offering a feature for 3 generations of a product launch? Makes perfect sense¡
2) There are reasons why Siri can't be on every single device Apple makes. You need to alter your myopic view and realize that Siri is a server-side service, not a local one.
I only mentioned two generations not three but we are splitting hairs. I don't think you understand what I am getting it. By withholding features such as Siri from products that are quite capable of running it, Apple is engaging in an economic trick known as "Premium Pricing" which is a form of price discrimination. That's the type of behaviour that is typical of a company that is run by sales and marketing and not a company that believes "that technology alone is not enough". Shame, as I thought this was exactly what Jobs didn't want to happen to the company. Companies do this because it leads to economic success but it makes for lousy consumer experience in the long run.
Apple seems to have no problem getting Mountain Lion to run on 5 year-old hardware. Check out the specs page for supported models. However, imagine if they told you that you can only use iCloud, Photo-sync and Messages on the latest generation hardware and none of the older models. What would you think then?
Sure, you can't expect Apple to provide a fully featured iOS release for mobile devices older than a couple of years given the CPUs in those devices. But withholding, as you said, "a server-side service" from those older devices, that's just blatant marketing. Oh, and maybe if you had bothered to read my post on Siri you would know I know exactly how it works and how Apple could actually make it better.
There's no reason Siri couldn't be on the iPad 2 or the new iPad today (or the iPhone 4 for that matter) but instead Apple only makes the full release (remember the iOS 5 version is still a beta) available on certain hardware and only in the next iOS release. I was using it as an example of how Apple is starting to use novelties to drive sales rather than useful innovations (read my piece on why I think this is: http://jeff-with-a-g.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/apples-high-order-bit.html). It's a trend I think we will see more of at Apple simply because they don't have any real competition. Which is a shame because people often do their best work when they have to compete. That's what I think a lot of the press are hoping Microsoft will do with the Surface. Compete. Doesn't look like it's gonna pan out that way.
Sorry, but your post is complete bullshit. The original iPhone was competing with nothing. The original iPad- nothing. The original Macbook Air- nothing. There was nothing like it. They basically created the modern smartphone, tablet, and ultrabook markets, with new products where Apple wasn't defending themselves but entering new markets. Apple does their best work regardless of what anyone else is doing. They've never 'stagnated' because of something related to the competition. If anything, there's more competition now against them than there ever has been, so your logic is incredibly flawed. Oh, and Siri is 'useless' because you deem it so? Yeah, controlling a device in a handsfree manner by using natural language is entirely 'useless' I can't think of a single scenario where that might be actually useful. I've used Siri thousands of times in my car, etc, or for various tasks where it's much faster than any other method. Also, why don't you list some 'innovations' that Apple should implement, since you obviously have a ton in mind?
This whole Surface thing just seems a little bit strange to me. Ignoring the fact that the presentation was an almost word-for-word ripoff of the one Jobs gave a few years ago, it all seemed a little bit desperate. The Surface certainly didn't appear like a product that had been developed in secrecy for years; it was more like a spec-list cribbed from Apple rumours ('look it has a LIQUID METAL back', 'look the screen is just as good as Retina'). And if this thing had been in development for so long then why is it crashing on it's first demo? Why didn't they show it running any apps? Why were they reluctant to let anyone play with it? Why haven't the specs and the prices been nailed down yet?
I don't think this is a long-term hidden project. I think this is something that only came into being a few months ago. And I don't think Microsoft cares if they make money from it. This is Microsoft telling its lazy OEMs that this is the device they want them to build, and if they don't...
Shame, as I thought this was exactly what Jobs didn't want to happen to the company. Companies do this because it leads to economic success but it makes for lousy consumer experience in the long run.
Yeah, because under Jobs this never happened, right? I can think of like 20 situations off the top of my head where it did, most more eggregious than Siri. Stop trying to twist reality to fit your narrative that the boat is sinking because Jobs is gone. Jobs was alive for 4 generations of iPhones, and there was a TON of people bitching during that time about features artificially limited to newer devices. This didn't start after his death, but I'm sure you knew that. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest Siri would be on the iPad 2 or iPhone 4 if Jobs was alive. An objective, reasonable person would realize that Apple's decision making, philosophy, attitude, and obsession with detail and excellence has remained remarkably consistent.
Sorry, but your post is complete bullshit. The original iPhone was competing with nothing. The original iPad- nothing. The original Macbook Air- nothing. There was nothing like it. They basically created the modern smartphone, tablet, and ultrabook markets, with new products where Apple wasn't defending themselves but entering new markets. Apple does their best work regardless of what anyone else is doing. They've never 'stagnated' because of something related to the competition. If anything, there's more competition now against them than there ever has been, so your logic is incredibly flawed. Oh, and Siri is 'useless' because you deem it so? Yeah, controlling a device in a handsfree manner by using natural language is entirely 'useless' I can't think of a single scenario where that might be actually useful. I've used Siri thousands of times in my car, etc, or for various tasks where it's much faster than any other method. Also, why don't you list some 'innovations' that Apple should implement, since you obviously have a ton in mind?
Wow. Talk about flawed logic. A computer company that struggled for many years to compete with Windows PCs invents new things and enters new markets because they aren't competing?! And they work in a vacuum where nothing anyone else is doing affects their designs? Sorry, can't wrap my head around that one. Jobs was an expert at twisting reality but you my friend are the master!
Also I never said Siri was useless. I said I found it painful to use when compared to an earlier product, Voice Control, and that Siri could have been done better. And my "innovation" was to have both features work in tandem to improve the voice recognition experience for the user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Yeah, because under Jobs this never happened, right? I can think of like 20 situations off the top of my head where it did, most more eggregious than Siri. Stop trying to twist reality to fit your narrative that the boat is sinking because Jobs is gone. Jobs was alive for 4 generations of iPhones, and there was a TON of people bitching during that time about features artificially limited to newer devices. This didn't start after his death, but I'm sure you knew that. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest Siri would be on the iPad 2 or iPhone 4 if Jobs was alive. An objective, reasonable person would realize that Apple's decision making, philosophy, attitude, and obsession with detail and excellence has remained remarkably consistent.
Go ahead and list those 20 situations. I'm sure it'll be impractical things that most of the whiners complained about like no multi-tasking on their iPhone 3G. You know what, I hacked mine to enable it and it sucked. There's a difference between enforcing a practical limitation and enforcing one for marketing purposes and that is what I was getting at.
I never said the boat is sinking. Why are you saying that? All I said is that it's just on a different course. One that doesn't really appeal to me given the satisfaction I've previously had from Apple's products over the last 12 years.
Comments
I'd wager the delay for the Core-i5 model is because the chips they are using, the 22nm chips, are only starting to sell this month. If MS wants premium pricing for what I assume is at least 100k units they'll have to wait a bit.
I see two units both priced at $225 having a 17W TDP which puts them in them squarely in the Ultabook range. They could still under clock them but it's hard to imagine MS doing that. The 11" MBA has 35 WHr battery whilst the x86 Surface running Win8 Pro has a 45 WHr battery so I'd say it's duration is likely comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
As I look at the extremely tight packaging on the Surface tablet, it makes me wonder if they can really keep an i5 or i7 chip cool enough to run well.
I am curious if they are just using the lower clocked i5/i7 that you would use in a macbook air? If Apple can keep that one cool enough to perform well, MS should be able to pull this off. maybe.
Or, they could have an XBox -melt the inside- issue. You never know with MS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiekiduk
sounds like Shih forgot about the Xbox
The Xbox was a disaster and MS had to replace nearly all of them, sometimes multiple times until they got it right. Few companies have the resources to take such a hit for a long time. Essentially, MS bought the business by filling a large hole with bad Xboxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLuvin
I am curious if they are just using the lower clocked i5/i7 that you would use in a macbook air? If Apple can keep that one cool enough to perform well, MS should be able to pull this off. maybe.
Or, they could have an XBox -melt the inside- issue. You never know with MS.
High CPU or graphics intensive application require the user to blow in the side vents like it was a bass harmonica.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neosum
I think it's more like:
RT: $499 because they think it's better than the ipad.
Pro: $999 because they think it's better than the mba.
The fact that they haven't released the price shows that it's gonna be high. All they said was that it would be "comparable" to the prices of their competitors. They're trying to build excitement without disappointing people on price. When it's finally revealed, they're hoping the excitement drowns out the high prices. Had the prices been low, they'd have it plastered everywhere already.
I'm no expert, but I think the only way they'll succeed is on price. At $299 for the RT and $499 for the Pro, they'll sell. At the price they want to charge, I doubt it'll do better than a few million units at most.
I agree with you except for the quantity sold. The RT version will hit the market first, without much of a app selection. It will be buggy and many promised features will be "added soon." The MSspeak for "don't hold your breath." This will set the mood for the Intel version which will sell like bacon in an Arab market. Since these turds will only be dropped on the USA market, I project sales of them to be in the hundreds of thousands combined.
You really have to think of them as being only a "table top" device. With a floppy keyboard and kickstand they will be hell to use on your lap or in bed, in the car, or anywhere you don't have a flat surface to set them up; hence the name, SURFACE. But lets keep this in mind, the Intel Surface, while being a table top computer has no more speed or graphics power then the MBA. It is FAR from being a desk top computer in any way. So, compare it to an MBA, without a back-lit keyboard, about half the time away from a power source, and unusable in most the ways one would use a MBA. The SURFACE is more of proof-of-concept then a marketable device.
Those are definitely interesting numbers. And at first glance it looks like Apple is in a favorable position.
On the other hand... PC growth could stagnate or even shrink a bit... and Microsoft will still cash in on hundreds of millions of copies of Windows sold on PCs.
iPad sales are great... but PC sales are overwhelmingly high by comparison. Wasn't it 300 million last year? And how many of those were running Microsoft Windows @ $78 a pop?
Maybe in 5 or 10 years people will have no use for a standard PC running a Microsoft OS. But I can't even imagine a day going by where not a single Windows PC is sold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer
as a long time windows user and mac user who enjoys both platforms I love this! Let customers see how great Windows is when it isnt fucked up by oem crapware.
also I think the intel version is very compelling, its what I wanted the iPad to be - a tablet when it makes sence, leaned back on the couch, on a plane or something, but a serious laptop when I need to really work...1 device, no need to have internet connections everywhere and rely on and trust a third party cloud serviceto ensure that my laptops documents are synced with my tablet.
Mr Greer, Microsoft has your back. They plan to charge only $99 to remove OEM Crapware in Windows 8.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-to-charge-customers-99-to-remove-oem-crapware/20446
Of course that boggles my mind when OS X 8 in July 2012 is only $19.95 in the Apple Mac App Store.
Mr Greer, do you plan to always sit at a desk with this Microsoft Surface so you can take advantage of that kickstand? I am sitting downstairs with a recent Mac Book Pro in my lap right now in a low light room. It is comfortable. The screen is bright and sharp. I can see the full stroke keys as they are backlighted also.
I seldom use the desk but that laptop travels all over. When I am not using it my wife grabs it and carries it to the kitchen and dinning room. She would never touch any of our high end Windows computers but she grabs the iPad or the MBP in a heart beat, for her every thing just works now.
Does this Microsoft Surface have all the features of what is known as the worlds best laptops?
Yes I know Microsoft now has a 'magsafe connector' like Apple. Do you think there will be legal anger over that which could prevent the Surface from even appearing in the USA?
Would a knowledgeable customer feel the Surface is an ugly compromise that can not even compare to the new ultra fast instant on Mac Book Air?
OK I also have an iPad 3 that I use while laying in bed. I can send the screen to a large HD TV across the room with Apple AirPlay. Does the Surface do all these things?
Does it even have a similar screen with an onscreen keyboard for use in bed or is it the wrong dimension for that?
BTW when I get into a new 2012 Toyota Hybrid Camry the phone and iPad instantly pair when I press the ON switch. I can control the iPad media with the media buttons on the left side of the steering wheel. Lets see I could have bought Ford's latest and greatest high tech but I noticed Ford came with Microsoft controls. Knowing what I do about Microsoft's OS reliability would I want to entrust my precious wife to a possible 'blue screen of death' while she was driving?
You may chuckle at that part of my decision process but did you see Ford's ranking plunged in JD Power's reliability ratings on Wednesday because of the very Microsoft features included in the Ford brand? I was right!
It will be a long way off before I again consider anything from Microsoft as a viable and reliable tool in the post PC era.
Is it true these Microsoft tablets also have a cooling fan? Has anybody ever heard of any tablet having a cooling fan before now?
That would have to impact battery life compared to the iPad, wouldn't it?
Anyone?
I think all Win tablet have had fans. That's a couple decades of failed tablets. Then there is the ModBook which used a fan. it was really the iPad that made a tablet viable without a fan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4phun
Is it true these Microsoft tablets also have a cooling fan? Has anybody ever heard of any tablet having a cooling fan before now?
That would have to impact battery life compared to the iPad, wouldn't it?
Anyone?
My understanding is they have no fans, but multiple cooling ports around the perimeter that allow some type of convection cooling.
You could be right and that could be a clever thing to pull off with a 17W CPU which would deserve allocates but I assumed the perimeter vents just meant that no single placement of the hands would block all of the vents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vigilant007
Maybe this is biased from the people I know. But this is a fact. More and more people are using Mac's in the Windows development world.
Will Microsoft Surface succeed to a certain degree? Personally? I don't think it will be any more successful then the Lumia 900 or 800. I hope it is though. The more competition there is the better it is for the end user.
Agreed. Competition is definitely what's needed. Unfortunately, Apple seems to have hit upon the idea that they can propel sales through novelty features, like Siri (http://jeff-with-a-g.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/siri-ously-apple-could-you-fix-this.html), rather than useful innovative features. Microsoft did the same with the Kinect. Does anybody know any regular consumer who didn't simply buy the Kinect for a laugh and now it's just sitting around gathering dust? Expect to see more of this trend from all sides.
Microsoft don't seem to have a clue when it comes to tablets. A pen? Seriously? And have they actually done any testing on that kickstand? The beauty of a laptop/netbook/ultrabook screen is that you can adjust the angle to suit your head position and to suit the ambient light. Oh, and you can also balance it on your lap and type while you're sitting on the sofa. The best iPad cases I've used have graduations in their stands so you can adjust the angle but even then they're far from perfect. Microsoft will sell a few of these things as people will fall for the "well, it does more than an iPad" line until they realise that "more" does not mean "better".
Typing on any tablet sucks so kudos to Microsoft for thinking of that one but what makes them think typing on a touch sensitive pad is going to be any better? Obviously they thought of that too as they have a proper keyboard for the Surface as well. Too bad what they didn't think of is "if you are doing lots of typing on a tablet then you are doing it wrong and should be using an ultrabook!"
Let's see what Google can offer next week. For starters, how about some protection from Microsoft for those that want to develop platforms based on Android? Or maybe they plan to pay the $5 Microsoft tax for every Google Xoom too?
You mean the Siri that hasn't been on any iPad since it shipped in 2010 and the Siri that will only be available on iPad (3) with iOS 6 in a few months? That's the Siri to which you refer in a discussion about tablets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You mean the Siri that hasn't been on any iPad since it shipped in 2010 and the Siri that will only be available on iPad (3) with iOS 6 in a few months? That's the Siri to which you refer in a discussion about tablets?
Yeah, that Siri. My point exactly.
There's no reason Siri couldn't be on the iPad 2 or the new iPad today (or the iPhone 4 for that matter) but instead Apple only makes the full release (remember the iOS 5 version is still a beta) available on certain hardware and only in the next iOS release. I was using it as an example of how Apple is starting to use novelties to drive sales rather than useful innovations (read my piece on why I think this is: http://jeff-with-a-g.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/apples-high-order-bit.html). It's a trend I think we will see more of at Apple simply because they don't have any real competition. Which is a shame because people often do their best work when they have to compete. That's what I think a lot of the press are hoping Microsoft will do with the Surface. Compete. Doesn't look like it's gonna pan out that way.
1) Your point is that Apple has propelled the iPad sales to grow faster than any other product they've sold in the past, including the iPhone by not offering a feature for 3 generations of a product launch? Makes perfect sense¡
2) There are reasons why Siri can't be on every single device Apple makes. You need to alter your myopic view and realize that Siri is a server-side service, not a local one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) Your point is that Apple has propelled the iPad sales to grow faster than any other product they've sold in the past, including the iPhone by not offering a feature for 3 generations of a product launch? Makes perfect sense¡
2) There are reasons why Siri can't be on every single device Apple makes. You need to alter your myopic view and realize that Siri is a server-side service, not a local one.
I only mentioned two generations not three but we are splitting hairs. I don't think you understand what I am getting it. By withholding features such as Siri from products that are quite capable of running it, Apple is engaging in an economic trick known as "Premium Pricing" which is a form of price discrimination. That's the type of behaviour that is typical of a company that is run by sales and marketing and not a company that believes "that technology alone is not enough". Shame, as I thought this was exactly what Jobs didn't want to happen to the company. Companies do this because it leads to economic success but it makes for lousy consumer experience in the long run.
Apple seems to have no problem getting Mountain Lion to run on 5 year-old hardware. Check out the specs page for supported models. However, imagine if they told you that you can only use iCloud, Photo-sync and Messages on the latest generation hardware and none of the older models. What would you think then?
Sure, you can't expect Apple to provide a fully featured iOS release for mobile devices older than a couple of years given the CPUs in those devices. But withholding, as you said, "a server-side service" from those older devices, that's just blatant marketing. Oh, and maybe if you had bothered to read my post on Siri you would know I know exactly how it works and how Apple could actually make it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otterfish
Yeah, that Siri. My point exactly.
There's no reason Siri couldn't be on the iPad 2 or the new iPad today (or the iPhone 4 for that matter) but instead Apple only makes the full release (remember the iOS 5 version is still a beta) available on certain hardware and only in the next iOS release. I was using it as an example of how Apple is starting to use novelties to drive sales rather than useful innovations (read my piece on why I think this is: http://jeff-with-a-g.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/apples-high-order-bit.html). It's a trend I think we will see more of at Apple simply because they don't have any real competition. Which is a shame because people often do their best work when they have to compete. That's what I think a lot of the press are hoping Microsoft will do with the Surface. Compete. Doesn't look like it's gonna pan out that way.
Sorry, but your post is complete bullshit. The original iPhone was competing with nothing. The original iPad- nothing. The original Macbook Air- nothing. There was nothing like it. They basically created the modern smartphone, tablet, and ultrabook markets, with new products where Apple wasn't defending themselves but entering new markets. Apple does their best work regardless of what anyone else is doing. They've never 'stagnated' because of something related to the competition. If anything, there's more competition now against them than there ever has been, so your logic is incredibly flawed. Oh, and Siri is 'useless' because you deem it so? Yeah, controlling a device in a handsfree manner by using natural language is entirely 'useless' I can't think of a single scenario where that might be actually useful. I've used Siri thousands of times in my car, etc, or for various tasks where it's much faster than any other method. Also, why don't you list some 'innovations' that Apple should implement, since you obviously have a ton in mind?
I dunno.
This whole Surface thing just seems a little bit strange to me. Ignoring the fact that the presentation was an almost word-for-word ripoff of the one Jobs gave a few years ago, it all seemed a little bit desperate. The Surface certainly didn't appear like a product that had been developed in secrecy for years; it was more like a spec-list cribbed from Apple rumours ('look it has a LIQUID METAL back', 'look the screen is just as good as Retina'). And if this thing had been in development for so long then why is it crashing on it's first demo? Why didn't they show it running any apps? Why were they reluctant to let anyone play with it? Why haven't the specs and the prices been nailed down yet?
I don't think this is a long-term hidden project. I think this is something that only came into being a few months ago. And I don't think Microsoft cares if they make money from it. This is Microsoft telling its lazy OEMs that this is the device they want them to build, and if they don't...
Quote:
Originally Posted by otterfish
Shame, as I thought this was exactly what Jobs didn't want to happen to the company. Companies do this because it leads to economic success but it makes for lousy consumer experience in the long run.
Yeah, because under Jobs this never happened, right? I can think of like 20 situations off the top of my head where it did, most more eggregious than Siri. Stop trying to twist reality to fit your narrative that the boat is sinking because Jobs is gone. Jobs was alive for 4 generations of iPhones, and there was a TON of people bitching during that time about features artificially limited to newer devices. This didn't start after his death, but I'm sure you knew that. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest Siri would be on the iPad 2 or iPhone 4 if Jobs was alive. An objective, reasonable person would realize that Apple's decision making, philosophy, attitude, and obsession with detail and excellence has remained remarkably consistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Sorry, but your post is complete bullshit. The original iPhone was competing with nothing. The original iPad- nothing. The original Macbook Air- nothing. There was nothing like it. They basically created the modern smartphone, tablet, and ultrabook markets, with new products where Apple wasn't defending themselves but entering new markets. Apple does their best work regardless of what anyone else is doing. They've never 'stagnated' because of something related to the competition. If anything, there's more competition now against them than there ever has been, so your logic is incredibly flawed. Oh, and Siri is 'useless' because you deem it so? Yeah, controlling a device in a handsfree manner by using natural language is entirely 'useless' I can't think of a single scenario where that might be actually useful. I've used Siri thousands of times in my car, etc, or for various tasks where it's much faster than any other method. Also, why don't you list some 'innovations' that Apple should implement, since you obviously have a ton in mind?
Wow. Talk about flawed logic. A computer company that struggled for many years to compete with Windows PCs invents new things and enters new markets because they aren't competing?! And they work in a vacuum where nothing anyone else is doing affects their designs? Sorry, can't wrap my head around that one. Jobs was an expert at twisting reality but you my friend are the master!
Also I never said Siri was useless. I said I found it painful to use when compared to an earlier product, Voice Control, and that Siri could have been done better. And my "innovation" was to have both features work in tandem to improve the voice recognition experience for the user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Yeah, because under Jobs this never happened, right? I can think of like 20 situations off the top of my head where it did, most more eggregious than Siri. Stop trying to twist reality to fit your narrative that the boat is sinking because Jobs is gone. Jobs was alive for 4 generations of iPhones, and there was a TON of people bitching during that time about features artificially limited to newer devices. This didn't start after his death, but I'm sure you knew that. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest Siri would be on the iPad 2 or iPhone 4 if Jobs was alive. An objective, reasonable person would realize that Apple's decision making, philosophy, attitude, and obsession with detail and excellence has remained remarkably consistent.
Go ahead and list those 20 situations. I'm sure it'll be impractical things that most of the whiners complained about like no multi-tasking on their iPhone 3G. You know what, I hacked mine to enable it and it sucked. There's a difference between enforcing a practical limitation and enforcing one for marketing purposes and that is what I was getting at.
I never said the boat is sinking. Why are you saying that? All I said is that it's just on a different course. One that doesn't really appeal to me given the satisfaction I've previously had from Apple's products over the last 12 years.