The Kindle at 3/8" thick is a delight to handle. It's far easier to keep hold of than my Archos 9 at 2/3" thick and 1.75lbs. An 8.5" screen would fit, or a 7" screen would fit with an iPad's wide bezel, but either would be large enough to make great tablets. I'm sure the thinness could be managed if an OLED screen was used. Yes, I know an 8.5" 1024 x 768 OLED screen wouldn't allow a $499 price right now. Still, I'll bet when the technology becomes affordable we'll see a thinner iPad. Something with an iPad-ish UI and the size and weight of my 6" Kindle is exactly what I'd love to have right now.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
competitors must be pissed
- Thread starter Acorn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well I am no fan of Ballmer, but to be fair his initial comments were somewhat correct. Apple didn't launch with a 99 dollar iPhone 3G, they had a 600 dollar edge phone. Sales were ok but not great the first year.
It wasn't until the price drops and the opening of the app store that it really took off, and none of those facts factored into his comments when the iPhone was first presented.
That said, he still seems to be kind of a moron. But that's not really germane to the topic.
I think because of his other comments, the waters get muddied -
Guy wasn't distinguishing between phones & smartphones.
The good competitors with the Software, the OS, the marketplace for apps, will lap up the iPad - as it helps expand their market. More iPads = more consumer interest/awareness - and some consumers will want Apple alternatives, or something Apple doesn't provide.
Palm showed with the Pre that there are issues and areas that the iPhone OS is behind/lacking in. Apple's slow onward raising of the bar means that some of these factors will soon go with OS 4.0
As Apple might take a better profit margin, there may be some space for the competitors who're used to using lower margins. benchmarks/comparisons will be made regardless of standardised testing - though that will come. just using it will be a good indicator for most as to how smooth/fast /responsive it is.
The design is glass, bezel, touchscreen and innards. Whilst clunky/ the 1st go at things some of the tablet PCs are a stab at things. They just need the OS so they can scale down in size the components.
Microsoft needs to get devs on board with SIlverlight, but the dev community afaik is bigger for Android by a big margin in comparison to the iPhone, and there are more MSFT devs than Apple devs.
Being open to devs could be seen as an advantage over Apple for starters. Or running the gauntlet of not using a gatekeeper over the approved apps model.
That's patently false, of course other competitors can improve on a tablet computer. Apple isn't the end all/be and there's always room for improvement.
While you mention the CPU that apple is using is the best there ever is, I suspect that intel chip sets can and will give it a run for the money. The thing is you're equating perfection to a device that isn't even available for sale yet. No one has it in his hands yet.
Overall competitors are not pissed but rather see an opening to market their devices where apple cannot. A true tablet computer, not an over-sized iPod Touch.
Here's the problem with that: it's been tried and simply doesn't work.
I know I keep banging on about this around these parts but I beg people to stop and THINK before demanding a 'true tablet computer'. You're dealing with a 10" screen at a maximum, backed up with a mobile processor or at best a CULV device, relatively limited graphics, storage that must be solid state and a price point that has to make sense when compared to modern laptops. That spec is going to limit what you could do with a 'true tablet computer' in horrible, horrible ways.
Take, oh, Photoshop for example. First you'd need to redesign the entire interface from the ground up so that it a) fit on the screen properly and b) could actually be used by fingers. That's a huge step right there. Then you've got to recode the entire application to be lean and fast in order to stand a chance of getting decent performance out of the processor. THEN you've got to figure out a way of handling a large image file which can take up scary amounts of memory. And then, somehow, you need to make the entire thing play nice with the rest of the OS.
That's a vast amount of work to get a common productivity tool working PROPERLY on a 'true tablet computer'. Yes, you could run the standard desktop app but good lord that'd be a horrible experience. I really doubt it'd be useable actually and as for getting any work done on it, forget about it. Sure, you could add more hardware, maybe pop a 13" screen on there but there's three problems with that:
1) You loose the slim and light tablet form factor (and probably generate enough heat to require active cooling).
2) Battery life goes to hell
3) It'd probably still only give you a passable user experience rather than a good one.
It's the applications that are the sticking point with Tablet PC's, always has been. Even if Windows 7 had the best touch interface the world has ever seen (it doesn't btw) it still runs standard Windows applications which are built around keyboards and mice and gigabytes of RAM and tens of gigabytes of storage and fast multi-core processors. Try to cram that experience into a tablet and you end up with something heavy and power-hungry which produces a far worse result than the equivalent laptop. The only place a device like that can survive is in specialist markets using custom software built around the device. Now in a few years when we can get the same power as a Core 2 Duo in the equivalent of the A4 it might be a different story but you'll still have to overcome that interface issue.
Apple have taken a different approach with the iPad and it's just about the only one that's got a hope of working as far as I can see. The hardware is nice and, from initial hands on reports, seems quick using iPhone OS. The rest is up to developers to make use of the device and free up its potential. Whether they will or not remains to be seen of course.
But I think this is exactly what is going to drive a significant amount of sales by parents and educational institutions. Yes, they are a gatekeeper, and as a result you have what most will consider a safe and clean platform. There are pros and cons to every approach, but from the sales perspective, this is likely going to have a very positive impact.
Focusing on whether competitors can match the hardware specs of the iPad does not begin to show how big a lead Apple has over the competition. The major hurdle all tablets have faced is the user interface. iPhone OS is by far the best solution to date that allows a user to navigate and actually be productive on a tablet.
Rewatching the iWork demo in the Keynote illustrates how big a lead Apple has over everyone else. Who is even close to having a multi-touch based OS, let alone having a large base of apps redesigned for multi-touch?
It's the software that makes the iPad revolutionary, not the hardware. Apple is years ahead of anyone else as far as implementing this into production devices and getting real customer feedback. MS has the multi-touch technology, money, and coders to duplicate what Apple has done, but they don't quite have a 75 million customer-base already using their multi-touch implementation and able to give them feedback. This is why it will take a Herculean effort on the part of MS or someone else to catch Apple.
Rewatching the iWork demo in the Keynote illustrates how big a lead Apple has over everyone else. Who is even close to having a multi-touch based OS, let alone having a large base of apps redesigned for multi-touch?
It's the software that makes the iPad revolutionary, not the hardware. Apple is years ahead of anyone else as far as implementing this into production devices and getting real customer feedback. MS has the multi-touch technology, money, and coders to duplicate what Apple has done, but they don't quite have a 75 million customer-base already using their multi-touch implementation and able to give them feedback. This is why it will take a Herculean effort on the part of MS or someone else to catch Apple.
And despite all the "iFart" apps, I generally find that iPhone apps are of significantly higher quality than those that were every available on either Palm devices, WinMo devices etc.
There are plenty of crappy apps for iPhone, but the good apps tend to be WAY better than the best apps of the previous platforms I used.
Not only that, but iPhone apps are extremely cheap. Where I was spending $30-50 on apps for Palm and WinMo devices, I am now spending $10 for super high quality apps and games and less than $5 for middle of the road stuff. Most stuff has some version of a free app.
The Chrome OS tablet has the potential to be a better web device. But iPad has the upperhand as a content distribution device I'd think.