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.
I'm so happy for Galaxy Tab, PlayBook, etc.
- Thread starter coolwater
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Someone made a response regarding this type of comment on another thread earlier, but have to agree in that I don't think it matters if this competition succeeds or not. Apple is going to put out a killer product no matter what. I frankly don't think they give a damn about what other tablets are out there because the iPad is blowing them out of the water, and will continue to do so. Of course we'll see a few blips on the radar, but come on- no one is going to put up the iPad's numbers. But despite of this, I think- wait I KNOW the next iPad will be as kick ass as the first one, regardless of what else it needs to compete against. Correct me if I'm wrong, but could your mother, neighbor, etc name a tablet device before the iPad? Not a chance. Apple doesn't see the bar, and then try to jump over it. They SET the bar. My opinion of course.
Galaxy Tab sucks big time and I seriously doubt it will be that much successful to consumers. I saw early demo units online and it was buggy and slow. I do realize that it was an early demo unit, but it was so slow. Since google said, Android 2.2 is not optimized for tablets, you would be stupid to buy one. It's almost October and galaxy Tab is still not out yet. Galaxy Tab is just a little more powerful than iPad and I just don't see why would someone buy Galaxy Tab over Blackberry playbook or iPad.
The one thing I like about Blackberry and apple devices is how both of these companies handle both hardware and software. I don't like how samsung handles hardware and google handles software on Android. I never have.
In other words, iPad faces no competition this year. So far, I only think Blackberry playbook is the true competitor for the ipad and this is for business customers only.
The one thing I like about Blackberry and apple devices is how both of these companies handle both hardware and software. I don't like how samsung handles hardware and google handles software on Android. I never have.
In other words, iPad faces no competition this year. So far, I only think Blackberry playbook is the true competitor for the ipad and this is for business customers only.
I don't like RIMM products esp since my BlackBerry dies every 1 hr due to memory lack (I barely have anything on it) and requires a 7 minute reset. Anyhow, I must say that I was extremely impressed when I heard about the PlayBook. It is not something I had expected out of RIMM. I'm happy to see that it doesn't run on their POS software and uses QNS. Anyhow, I'm sure the next iPad will be a slap in the face for RIMM.
An opinion I agree with.
Unless apple finds a way to truly f up their position in the tablet race, everyone else will just keep doing whatever they can to grab the "leftovers".
I'm still excited to see what's on the way though. As with desktops and laptops, it's always great to see some variety.
What do you think the next iPad should have? I would love a memory card slot to add additional HD and a couple of USB ports would be nice. I would love the ability to customize the screen like I do with my notebook and desktop. Change dock, fonts, widgets and the rest. I use Goodreader as my file system but would like more options on that. I don't even care about a camer but I know others who do. I need more RAM for what I want to do which is a bit more processing. Right now it can handle the programs it currently has but you can always use more power and more storage.
You'll definitely not see a card slot. Maybe, possibly one extra USB port. And for the customization, never. Unless of course you jailbreak.
Not true.
This is an old canard, that unless you see competition, you get no progress. It's proven true with a company such as Microsoft which would glide along their monopoly path unless forced to compete. But it's not universally true, and one of those areas where this idea falls short is with Apple. Oh sure, if they had NO competition, Apple would coast to a degree, but only to a degree.
Look at the music player market. When was the last time anyone produced something that competed with the iPod? For almost a decade now the iPod has dominated music player market share. So for all practical purposes, in 2010, Apple has no credible competition for the iPod. Yet they still bring out new functionality every year and show no sign of letting up. No competition, but we get innovation from Apple routinely.
Don't parrot sayings blindly. Even something true in principle can be less applicable in the specific. I do get tired of people parroting the "good thing Apple has competition" when we have no evidence that the Apple of today needs competition to innovate. Apple has a road map, and they are moving full steam ahead regardless of how many other companies copy what they are doing.
This is an old canard, that unless you see competition, you get no progress. It's proven true with a company such as Microsoft which would glide along their monopoly path unless forced to compete. But it's not universally true, and one of those areas where this idea falls short is with Apple. Oh sure, if they had NO competition, Apple would coast to a degree, but only to a degree.
Look at the music player market. When was the last time anyone produced something that competed with the iPod? For almost a decade now the iPod has dominated music player market share. So for all practical purposes, in 2010, Apple has no credible competition for the iPod. Yet they still bring out new functionality every year and show no sign of letting up. No competition, but we get innovation from Apple routinely.
Don't parrot sayings blindly. Even something true in principle can be less applicable in the specific. I do get tired of people parroting the "good thing Apple has competition" when we have no evidence that the Apple of today needs competition to innovate. Apple has a road map, and they are moving full steam ahead regardless of how many other companies copy what they are doing.
Competition is usually always healthy, a monopoly simply causes complacency (here`s looking at you microsoft
)
I`m glad Apple are doing so well with the iPad, it`s a great bit of kit but I also don`t want them getting TOO comfortable.
)I`m glad Apple are doing so well with the iPad, it`s a great bit of kit but I also don`t want them getting TOO comfortable.
Apple was able to morph the dedicated mp3 player into a PDA (that basically replaced the functionality of Palm Pilots and Pocket PCs). If Apple has similar plans for the iPad, (ie. morph from a content consumption device to netbook/notebook replacement) then a card slot isn't that far out of consideration.
A card slot is out of consideration by Apple's design. Your argument would make a card slot a shoo-in for the mp3 player "morphing" into a PDA. Most smartphones have micro-SD cards. Apple makes money by selling storage. And it arguably benefits consumers because if they sold only one "size" of iPad then Apple would probably go with the midrange price of $599. This way they offer one for $100 less and one for $100 more. But there's not going to be an SD slot built in.
You can easily "expand" storage with the Camera Connector or AirStash or whatever streaming option they eventually decide on.
I think the music player market is a good example of the opposite. If the iPod nano line had some decent competition, Apple likely wouldn't have gone and discontinued such a popular player (the new nano is, to all intents and purposes, a completely different line). As it is, they can afford to try to upsell disgruntled consumers onto the iPod touch, because there really are very few other decent options.
The larger scope of my point is that things that don't seem plausible today may become reality depending upon Apple's strategy and direction... none of which any of us here have access to. (and if we did, we probably couldn't talk about it.)
The larger scope of my point is that things that don't seem plausible today may become reality depending upon Apple's strategy and direction... none of which any of us here have access to. (and if we did, we probably couldn't talk about it.)
There's no question that Apple can shift its plans at any time (it wasn't THAT long ago that Jobs couldn't envision anyone watching movies on a tiny screen) but micro-SD or SD could easily be added to any Apple device. It's not there for a reason.
We'll have to disagree on that because I think the new Nano is very cool, and shows a dedication toward pushing the line toward touch even when the screen size is small.
If you look at the original iPod from 2001 and compare it to today's Nano and touch models, it's amazing how much innovation has occurred without any serious competition.
Oh, I'm not disputing that the new nano is cool in its own right - just that it caters for a different market than the previous gen nano (and IMO creates a gap in Apple's lineup because of that).
Competition is usually always healthy, a monopoly simply causes complacency (here`s looking at you microsoft
I`m glad Apple are doing so well with the iPad, it`s a great bit of kit but I also don`t want them getting TOO comfortable.
The keyword in your response is MICROSOFT. We re talking about apple here- arguably the most innovative company in any domain. Give me an example of when apple has ever been complacent, and I might buy into this argument. Like I said earlier, Apple has never been comfortable with where they are at, even at the top.
Copying last year's model is not competition. The reason that Apple is more innovative than other companies is that Apple is in competition with itself.
Thank you, Mr. Jobs
Oh, I think Apple got complacent in the early-to-mid 1990s. But since Steve Jobs came back, they've had a clear vision of the future and have been heading toward that vision with a vengeance.
Alright, perhaps they were complacent THEN. But that was then, and Apple wasn't THIS Apple then. As far as this vision of the future goes, I'm not sure I buy that completely. They are trying too, and succeeding in being innovative now. There isn't some grand scheme of taking over the technology world. They just want to put quality products out that no other company can compete with, and they re doing a hell of a job at it. Oh, and they want to make a buttload of money too
.
I was simply using MS as an example, I could just as easily have said Google or Nokia. When you are at the top of your game (in terms of market share) particularly when that market share is vast (Nokia/Google/MS/Dell etc.) there is a tendancy to get a bit a bit complacent.
I am not accusing Apple of this, far from it. Apple has had a huge market share in the past and has experience of losing it (Apple II springs to mind).
Apple lost it`s way in the mid-late 90`s and almost collapsed as a result. There was very little cohesion and and none of the purposeful confidence of Apple now.
Apple have always been innovative but their impact during this period was miniscule, not many real breakthrough products, at least nothing that was achieving much commercial success.
The iPad is a superb thing in many ways, I regularly "borrow" my wife`s and it does pretty much what I`d want from such a device.
If no-one else tries to better it then much of Apples incentive to improve it would disappear.
I would not want Apple to be "the only game in town" any more than I`d want Microsoft/Google/HTC/RIM/whoever to be.
Competition is healthy.