Do the Naysayers actually think iPad will Fail?

[Carouser]

The iPad is a nice device, but it has flaws and short coming. Apple has chosen to have these flaws and short comings in their iPad.

Anyone who doesn't admit to these flaws and short comings are too biased, because every product has flaws and short comings.

Sometimes those flaws and shortcomings are so irrelevant to the end user experience that they don't need to be constantly rehearsed. For example, I suppose my hammer has 'flaws and shortcomings' but it's worked without complaint or issue for years. I guess if I say 'hey it's a good hammer' I am being biased since I didn't also say 'it could be lighter and last longer though, my hammer isn't really that great, feh!'.

If there are other hammers on the market that 'do more' or 'have more features' it's entirely irrelevant to me, if the device does what I want it to.

Playing the spec game is a waste of time, comparing checkbox lists of features is pointless - see anthonymoody's post earlier.

Nobody needs to confess that the iPad lacks things if those things don't matter to them, even if every other device in the world has them.

 

[DaveSW]

they probably own netbooks and they're upsetthey bought a netbook instead of an iPad.

 

[4DThinker]

Neigh-sayers only speak in Horse. Very hard to understand. If a Horse thinks an ipad will fail, you have to look at it from the Horse point-of-view. The Horse may think the iPad should taste more like hay, and is sure any ipad that doesn't taste like hay will fail.

Or did you mean some other animal?

 

[bossxii]

Interesting article on the Appleblog today talking about when microwave ovens were introduced. The article reflects many of the same things debated between the iPad and laptops. I'm sure has happened over and over thru out history as new technology evolves.

A quick quote nearly sums up every anti-iPad thread made. This from the the article linked above.

"This backlash often accompanies new appliances. Consider the humble Microwave Oven; when it first appeared it was expensive and, for a great many people, seemingly-pointless; “But, we already have a real oven. Can a microwave oven brown? Can it roast? Can it grill? Can it warm plates and roast a turkey and heat my coffee at the same time? It can’t do even half the things my real oven does. It’s overpriced and unnecessary and I don’t need one. And no one else will, either.”

 

[dgree03]

Interesting article on the Appleblog today talking about when microwave ovens were introduced. The article reflects many of the same things debated between the iPad and laptops. I'm sure has happened over and over thru out history as new technology evolves.

A quick quote nearly sums up every anti-iPad thread made. This from the the article linked above.

"This backlash often accompanies new appliances. Consider the humble Microwave Oven; when it first appeared it was expensive and, for a great many people, seemingly-pointless; “But, we already have a real oven. Can a microwave oven brown? Can it roast? Can it grill? Can it warm plates and roast a turkey and heat my coffee at the same time? It can’t do even half the things my real oven does. It’s overpriced and unnecessary and I don’t need one. And no one else will, either.”

In a microwave oven, at least I can cook 2 things at once lol

 

[marksman]

The problem Apple will have with the iPad is when a competitor comes out with a very similar product that will do all the things the iPad can't. The iPad itself isn't a marvel of development. Apple created the iPad to be controlled by Apple, you can't put or do anything on the iPad that Apple doesn't want you to.

Any company (HP, Sony, Dell, Google, HTC, etc) can design and develop a similar size/shape device and install a full OS with full featured software. This would draw more attention.

See all the iphone copycats for proof of this I guess?

 

[bossxii]

The problem Apple will have with the iPad is when a competitor comes out with a very similar product that will do all the things the iPad can't. The iPad itself isn't a marvel of development. Apple created the iPad to be controlled by Apple, you can't put or do anything on the iPad that Apple doesn't want you to.

Any company (HP, Sony, Dell, Google, HTC, etc) can design and develop a similar size/shape device and install a full OS with full featured software. This would draw more attention.

Kinda like all the endless press about the Dell 5" tablet? or the HP tablet that was shown at CES? or the Leveeno tablet or MSI's?

Ya I can't hardly find a tech blog without those companies plastered all over them....

OMG is this all in flash content? Maybe I have missed it because I use Click2flash! Damnit!

 

[samcraig]

It should be said that sales alone will not dictate whether or not the iPad is a success or failure.

Usage and growth will also dictate success or failure.

Millions of people could buy one. And yes - it could be considered a success based on sales figures. But if the device doesn't get the same usage as ipods or iphones, then success is relative.

Houses are filled with gadgets that people had to have. But after they were bought, they were used heavily for a month or so - and then sat on a shelf.

Now I'm not implying this of the iPad. I am just throwing it out there that sales figures alone do not = success. At least not LONG TERM success.

 

[BaldiMac]

It should be said that sales alone will not dictate whether or not the iPad is a success or failure.

Usage and growth will also dictate success or failure.

Millions of people could buy one. And yes - it could be considered a success based on sales figures. But if the device doesn't get the same usage as ipods or iphones, then success is relative.

Houses are filled with gadgets that people had to have. But after they were bought, they were used heavily for a month or so - and then sat on a shelf.

Now I'm not implying this of the iPad. I am just throwing it out there that sales figures alone do not = success. At least not LONG TERM success.

Way to hedge your bets! This way, even if the iPad is successful, you can still claim to be right eventually.

 

[samcraig]

Way to hedge your bets! This way, even if the iPad is successful, you can still claim to be right eventually.

Actually - I could give a rats behind whether it's a success or not. And I won't be gloating either way.

 

[yyy]

It should be said that sales alone will not dictate whether or not the iPad is a success or failure.

True, sales don't necessarily matter. If you want to know if a device is successful it has to pass 2 tests:

1. Other companies should imitate the device's design and form-factor or at least create fake products that look similar to it.

2. Someone should sue the company who developed the device for some technology used by it.

Both the iPod and iPhone have successfully passed these 2 tests so we know they are successful Now it's the iPad's turn.

 

[BaldiMac]

Actually - I could give a rats behind whether it's a success or not. And I won't be gloating either way.

Fair enough. But the amount of times that you have posted to threads about whether it will be a success or not lead me to believe otherwise.

 

[samcraig]

Fair enough. But the amount of times that you have posted to threads about whether it will be a success or not lead me to believe otherwise.

I know it's hard to imagine someone can discuss something on its merits without casting judgement on success or failure. Or not seeing things as black and white. Success and failure are subjective in many instances.

I haven't said it will fail nor have I exclaimed it will be a success. Time can really only determine that. And I don't feel the need to take pleasure or pain in trying to prove it otherwise.

 

[BaldiMac]

I know it's hard to imagine someone can discuss something on its merits without casting judgement on success or failure. Or not seeing things as black and white. Success and failure are subjective in many instances.

I haven't said it will fail nor have I exclaimed it will be a success. Time can really only determine that. And I don't feel the need to take pleasure or pain in trying to prove it otherwise.

Not hard to imagine at all. Not too common though. As I said, your explanation about you personally not caring about success or failure was fair enough.

Back to your original comment about defining success, I do think that all of the "Fail" type commenters have pointedly refrained from a realistic measure of success. What would be successful first-year sales? An iPod like 400,000? An iPhone like 6 million? I would think closer to the iPod since like the iPod, and unlike the iPhone, the iPad is for the most part trying to establish a new market.

I would think 1-2 million would be a sales success. As far as your comment about "LONG TERM success" vs sales success, I think that has more to do with the improvements that Apple makes to future versions of the iPad. Even if the 1st gen iPad "sits on the shelf", if the 1st gen was a sales success and the next gen creates a sales success, I would still consider that a success.

 

[mrsir2009]

It should be said that sales alone will not dictate whether or not the iPad is a success or failure.

Usage and growth will also dictate success or failure.

Millions of people could buy one. And yes - it could be considered a success based on sales figures. But if the device doesn't get the same usage as ipods or iphones, then success is relative.

Houses are filled with gadgets that people had to have. But after they were bought, they were used heavily for a month or so - and then sat on a shelf.

Now I'm not implying this of the iPad. I am just throwing it out there that sales figures alone do not = success. At least not LONG TERM success.

Yes, because if it sits of people's shelves people aren't going to use the iTunes store or the iBook store on it, plus no one will buy the 2nd gen when it comes out...

 

[marksman]

I think what sam is describing is the "netbook" effect.

Millions of netbooks have been sold but people found out they suck and are worthless, so they sit around collecting dust on everyone's shelves while they use their laptops and iphones/touches.

Don't worry Sam, the iPad is not likely to be another netbook failure.

 

[darngooddesign]

Sometimes those flaws and shortcomings are so irrelevant to the end user experience that they don't need to be constantly rehearsed. For example, I suppose my hammer has 'flaws and shortcomings' but it's worked without complaint or issue for years. I guess if I say 'hey it's a good hammer' I am being biased since I didn't also say 'it could be lighter and last longer though, my hammer isn't really that great, feh!'.

If there are other hammers on the market that 'do more' or 'have more features' it's entirely irrelevant to me, if the device does what I want it to.

Playing the spec game is a waste of time, comparing checkbox lists of features is pointless - see anthonymoody's post earlier.

Nobody needs to confess that the iPad lacks things if those things don't matter to them, even if every other device in the world has them.

A better analogy would be a screwdriver that only has the phillips head. If you never need to turn flat head screws then its fine, but if you need to turn both kinds of screws then it lacking. The lack of the flat head driver would be one of its flaws.

 

[Cinemagic]

Netbooks do seem to miss the boat. But they can do a lot more than an iPad. The iPad has superior ergonimocs and sex appeal. But let's face it, it's nothing more than an iPod Touch with a large screen.

 

[Carouser]

A better analogy would be a screwdriver that only has the phillips head. If you never need to turn flat head screws then its fine, but if you need to turn both kinds of screws then it lacking. The lack of the flat head driver would be one of its flaws.

Yeah, that's a pretty good analogy. To take it further, if I need a phillips head screwdriver, and that's all I ever need, and it works well, the criticism that 'it doesn't turn slot-head screws' is not even wrong; it misses the discussion completely.

 

[bossxii]

True, sales don't necessarily matter. If you want to know if a device is successful it has to pass 2 tests:

1. Other companies should imitate the device's design and form-factor or at least create fake products that look similar to it.

2. Someone should sue the company who developed the device for some technology used by it.

Both the iPod and iPhone have successfully passed these 2 tests so we know they are successful Now it's the iPad's turn.

Sales are everything. Apple makes the bulk of it's profits form hardware sales. If the iPad fizzles and doesn't sell more than a few hundred thousand in 2010, it won't attract developers to create unique apps, which in turn drive more sales. Low sales would make the iPad just another Apple TV and get a few updates now and then. It would be looked at as a failure and dev's would not invest the time or money to develop for it.

Sales are everything.

 

[samcraig]

I think what sam is describing is the "netbook" effect.

Millions of netbooks have been sold but people found out they suck and are worthless, so they sit around collecting dust on everyone's shelves while they use their laptops and iphones/touches.

Don't worry Sam, the iPad is not likely to be another netbook failure.

You are one of the last people who should try and interpret or describe what I mean. Whether you're trying to be funny (and failing) or not - I wasn't referring to the netbook or any specific device.

But you are so biased and one-tracked that heaven forfend someone has a differing opinion than yours.

I'm not worried about the iPad's success or failure. It's of no consequence to me either way. I have nothing invested other than some time spent hear reading and engaging in "debates."

 

[RazHyena]

Some naysayers seem to keep repeating just how wrong the iPad is (No front camera, no flash, no back camera, no flash, No OSX, no flash, no multitasking, no flash, no OLED, no flash, no built in HW keyboard, No flash...) Oh and no Flash.

If it is so wrong, do any of you actually think it is wrong enough to fail??

IMO the deficiencies(even the aparently horribly grievous no flash) are largely hot air; just an excuse to complain. The device will be an excellent reader/surfer/app platform tablet that will be a joy to actually use and sell robustly.

Do you disagree? Are the shortcomings fatal, or just something to complain about?

I guess my question to the OP is why do you care so much about what the naysayers think about the iPad? This is like the 4th "nuh uh, the ipad won't fail!!1" thread in the past week

 

[thejakill]

Why would ipads be bought and then sit on shelves?

iPhone users have something like 5 times the average use as other smartphones.

In fact, I think the appeal of the ipad to many people is that it's something they will WANT to use, because it looks like it will be a fun experience.

There's no way on earth it will be a failure. It's just not possible.

 

[Bytor65]

I guess my question to the OP is why do you care so much about what the naysayers think about the iPad? This is like the 4th "nuh uh, the ipad won't fail!!1" thread in the past week

Really and how many came AFTER my thread. How many threads complaining about flash? 10? 20?

Mine is asking a question because some people of the same people have been complaining for two weeks straight about the iPad, and I was wondering at their motivation. Did they think iPad defects were so severe that iPad was going to fail, or were they complaining about minor things for the sake of complaining.

From what I have read so far it seems to be the latter. Most of the long term complainers don't think iPad will fail, they are just complaining endlessly about minor issues. I still can't fathom the motivation.

 

[samcraig]

Why would ipads be bought and then sit on shelves?

iPhone users have something like 5 times the average use as other smartphones.

In fact, I think the appeal of the ipad to many people is that it's something they will WANT to use, because it looks like it will be a fun experience.

There's no way on earth it will be a failure. It's just not possible.

To play Devil's Advocate - don't you think the makers or HD-DVD thought the same thing? Beta? And countless other formats/devices?

I personally know lots of people that bought palm pilots back in their heyday because they were cool and they thought they'd use them only to not and after the had their fun with them - a few months later they were on the shelf.

Not saying the iPad will not be used. I'm just saying - time will tell. But statements like "it's just not possible" well - let's just say - ANYTHING is possible.