Well at least we have a proper debate!
No i certainly do not, nor do i read that shite and see it as an insult that you would suggest it.
It was half said tongue in cheek. Apologies.
My point is, as a lifestyle product, it fits a lifestyle that i cant see existing,
Apple would disagree, otherwise the product wouldn't have got past the research and development department.
if you want to browse the web, get a laptop, if you want a mac, get a mac,
Interesting logic bar the bleedin' obvious (i.e. want Mac, get Mac). I can't agree that if you want to browse the web though, "get a laptop". You get whichever device form factor that suits you that is capable of browsing. Desktop, laptop, Smartphone, TV, Netbook, Tablet and so on.
the fact that it is user friendly is bollocks as if you give a computer half an hour of your time you will find it to is easy, if not as idiot proof as the ipad, but if your that much of an idiot i cant imagine you will have the ability to read anyway.
Not bollocks at all. The elegance of the iPad (and the iPhone) is you pick it up, you press a button, you touch an icon and it just runs with a consistent feel. Touch is so much more intuitive and intimate than guiding a pointer on a screen and hitting a button. I assume "if your [
sic] that much of an idiot" is general, and not intended directly at me - although the irony still remains, feel free to pull me up on typos and grammar though
. Either way, I know computers and technology more than most, and I've spent a fair bit of time analysing both consumer and enterprise markets in regard to end user experience. iPad, like iPhone ticks boxes, many. Whether the general public are ready for the format is debatable. You're (and many others) are proof of that. Tablets (Apple, HP, Asus, Google, etc....) as a technology will start to make many in roads into our digital lifestyles and how we interact with technology. In some years to come, you'll probably be asking "Why the fuck would I want a big lump of a laptop?".
Apple could market anything and people would buy it, why, because its apple, its cool, its hip.
Although there is 'some' truth in this, trust me, the Apple brand would have failed along time ago if they didn't consistently churn out high quality products. More so in such a competitive market.
Now I have an iphone, i enjoy the apps it has and like the user interface, I work on pcs, and the occasional mac, and am looking at the possibility of getting a mac.
In the next two years my income should go from little to very nice, so my disposable income will become less restricted, however I could not find a reason to own this device. It adds nothing, and is quite restrictive.
It's fairly next gen in terms of its usage and form. And I get that it's somehow hard to understand what it offers, or apparently lacks. It's so much more or less than a full blown OS, or a simple consumer smart phone. It really is in the middle, and one day tablets will have the computational power of today's laptops, but then they'll be significant power houses also. I think as Google establishes Android and Chromium, likely to hit tablet style devices soon, as well as MSFT's late to party WinMo 7, the iPad might start to make more sense. Low power, low (relatively) cost computing for digital lifestyle information and micro-application consumption. If you don't get it now (and you should because you have an iPhone) you will eventually. Apple just set sail a bit early.
At the end of the day, to consider marketing, and cons as seperate is rather foolish, marketing is mainly about encouraging someone to buy something that without the marketing they would not need, they are not doing it to benefit the consumer, nor are they doing it to benefit the market. Many times when i worked in Unilever, important research that could actually be useful, would be canned as to spend more time working on the next marketers dream, something that may not improve the product but will fit in with the jargon.
No, I agree, and thought I'd eluded to that fact. Marketing equals con the consumer, or there or thereabouts.
The ipad has no market, and were it just named pad, would die a death similar to HD DVD, however brand power is strong,
Honestly do you believe Apple would have spent 100s of millions of dollars on something that they believed didn't have a market, but they could mitigate though clever marketing, spin and a strong brand? No chance. How big of a market remains to be seen, but you only need to pinch a bit from the netbook market, and the emerging eReader (Kindle, PRS etc) market and you're starting to have some growth. I love my computers, my technology, but personally, I'm sick to death of having a laptop on my lap in front of the telly at night. For 'me' (and others who'll recognise the value) a low powered, instant on, easy consumption device is good for me.
and the success of this device will just strangle innovation in the area and reward the marketeers.
Just can't agree with that. Apple is the first tablet device to sail with a consumer low power OS (WinMo, Android etc), backed by a mature micro-application market from the iPhone legacy. This in itself is innovative and an example of commercially doing something right. And one thing to note about innovation, is that sometimes the consumer world just isn't ready for innovation as they've just about kept up with the latest this and that. Apple have played their cards right here, by starting with a desirable device in the cellular phone market, developing an accessible (if not locked) application market with a free SDK, 'and' marketed well. But yes, there are certain things they've done that I don't like, the lock-in mainly, but you can't really discredit it that much for it due to its huge, and meritable, success.
Frankly, i buy my technology based on its use, and am happy to pay that bit extra for innovation, as that is what I crave, the idea of spending money. The more we reward items like this, the more the innovators decline.
You should, but you clearly don't have the need, desire or realisation for a device such as this. However, as a betting man, I'll tell you that I'd wager you will in the future.
Look what is happening in the movie industry and games industry. Bar the odd bit of excellent innovation a lot of the movies and games you see now are just a repeat of what you have seen before, maybe with a new character and a new location. Those that innovated are being pushed aside with the likes of EA buying the world, in the games industry.
Quite differing markets though. Movies and gaming is all about creative story telling and interactivity. It's the medium's job to make the real world's impossible, possible in a fictional way - hence so many boundaries have already been pushed. Hardware and technology is all about incrementally making the real world do previously impossible things possible, and it takes a long time. Both are still under the heavy hammer of consumer reaction though, and twiddle with the formula too much and you create a sinking commercial ship - and it's that balancing act that attributes success or failure, along with good or bad marketing.
I think your linking with the iphone is what sourced my reaction. The iPhone was an answer to a problem, devices at the time were not great on the internet, some were, but they had issues, and the iphone hit the market, being good on the net, an ipod, a capable email system, and the apps. Now this was not new, but it brought them together and placed itself in a market that was already there as a competitor, and won over, with people adopting it over other rivals.
Yes and so so. Although having stolen market share from WinMo and Blackberry, Apples largest market is in new business, i.e. growth, not competition over rivals. Apple have grown the market as a whole, and in all honesty, I expect it won't last forever. Google and Microsoft will catch up, and spend the next 10 years slowly clawing it back - it's what the power houses have done in the past. Although I do have some doubts this time, so don't quote me on that.
However the truth is, the market was there, they were taking a market share, it was a all in one solution to a problem that was there.
As above, I don't completely agree. There was a market, they exploited it and grew it. Although Nokia published otherwise (as the cellular market is still growing regardless), the switchers from regular mobile phone to smart phone is the real market. I don't think it was so much a problem. More, oh that looks nice, and fuck me look what I can do with it, and isn't it dead easy.
The iPad is completely different, it is coming into a market that is not really there, many people use a laptop or mac to browse, they also can do work, play games and do none work things, like photo editing, all with decent processor speeds, if they are new laptops.
I don't agree, but I will say that the iPad market is much smaller than the iPhone, and I'm pretty sure Apple know that. Consumers aren't really arsed about processor speeds, they just want to pick something up and do it. The iPad isn't a convergence device that will do everything, and it's not meant to. Yes, there's stuff you need a computer to do, and again, that's not it's point. It probably squares up closer to the netbook than anything out there, and you wouldn't really want to edit photos/video on a netbook either. It's a netbook, you want to surf, do e-mail, update facebook, etc etc. You probably don't even want to type a big long document in it either, but if you must you can. Let's also remember the netbook market is fairly huge too, biggest YoY growth in any consumer technology device. No market? I disagree. How big? Don't know, but I think the activities from other vendors trying to push a tablet will highlight it. Oh and you can play games on it, a large market for the iPhone app store, it'll pinch a bit off the DS and perhaps the PSP.
For the iPad to be succesful it needs to either create its own market share in a completely new area, or supplement the current one, at quite a cost, or replace it, which will result in it not being sufficient for a lot of peoples day to day lives.
It will open up it's own market in a growth area - like iPhone. But may be not as hugely, and as I said, netbook, Kindle, Sony eReader, UMPC, PDA, DS and PSP will need to be on their toes.
The iphone was the all in one solution to a problem
Have I double quoted you here, or is there an echo
the ipad is a limited device entering an uncertain market with limited (in terms of complete computing) market place
The iPad is a computationally limited consumer device entering a market that has seen huge growth in the also computationally limited netbook space, and touch based micro-application usage.
all in my opinion of course
And all in mine too buddy
Nice debating with you, keep the gloves up above the waist
