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.
Ipad (change going to come)
- Thread starter flyguy206
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The reason that the iPhone distances itself from the rest of the market and the reason that the iPad will do the same really isn't based on the "head start" that Apple had.
Sure putting out a revolutionary product like the iPhone and have a year or two before everyone else really got into the touchscreen game helps.
Sure having something with the success of the App store helps too.
But that really leads me to the biggest reason the iPhone and ultimately the iPad will have market dominance, is that Apple has the ecosystems. It is vertically integrated from the polished hardware, the multitouch interface, and the software that brings it and syncs it all together. No other competitor, even if they create an open or closed source device with or without a marketplace/store, will come close because no matter how good their hardware is or how close to the iPhone it is in features even with a better camera or whatnot, integrating the software and ease of use not only on the device but on the computer side is essential to the success. No one else can replicate that.
Sure putting out a revolutionary product like the iPhone and have a year or two before everyone else really got into the touchscreen game helps.
Sure having something with the success of the App store helps too.
But that really leads me to the biggest reason the iPhone and ultimately the iPad will have market dominance, is that Apple has the ecosystems. It is vertically integrated from the polished hardware, the multitouch interface, and the software that brings it and syncs it all together. No other competitor, even if they create an open or closed source device with or without a marketplace/store, will come close because no matter how good their hardware is or how close to the iPhone it is in features even with a better camera or whatnot, integrating the software and ease of use not only on the device but on the computer side is essential to the success. No one else can replicate that.
No one else HAS replicated that YET.
If people want to speculate what the iPad COULD or MIGHT do in the future - certainly it's fair to speculate that in the future another company might have a similar ecosystem. Or that other companies might create a "coalition" of sorts to unify an ecosystem. Who can say. But you can't say no one else will ever replicate what Apple's done. They've just done it first/best to date.
Your logic fails in every single way it almost ridiculous..
what people are saying is in respect to what steve jobs called a "magic, revolutionary device" it is NOT revolutionary and it is NOT magical... it is a larger version of a software and hardware already in the US with millions of users...
So in that respect it IS just a larger Ipod touch... it runs the same apps on a larger screen... it still needs to be attached to a computer/netbook/laptop... to do some syncing and updates... oh my.. like a iphone or ipod touch??
it still runs a grid style OS... like HMMMM the iphone or ipt
I wish people would stop dancing around that fact...
I understand that there is a future market... but we, as consumers are looking at what we can get NOW... we can choose to be early adopter and accept the short comings or we can choose to wait until apple give us that TRULY revolutionary product...
Oh and off topic, but there are NUMEROUS phones that are better than the iphone.. touch or no touch... this is fact even BEFORE the iphone debuted.. but im sure you knew that
Filled in the blanks for ya..
LOL I like your version much better! Poor concord lol
Apple is not in any way a software company. And by that I mean that they do not make software to make money. Anything from OS X to Aperture to Final Cut to iWorks is not about making money off of software. It is all a means to sell more product - physical hardware product. But they are able to sell iMacs, Mac Pros, MacBooks, iPods, iPhones, etc. all because they make the software for them. They didn't port iTunes to Windows so they could give PC users iTunes or so they could sell more songs in the iTunes store, they did it because by giving those PC users iTunes and the ability to buy songs from the iTunes store, they could then sell way way way more iPods and eventually iPhones. The iTunes store is a slightly better than break even endeavor. Maybe as it has grown their 30% gives them more profit than it once did, but it is designed to cover its costs and serve their hardware interests.
However, it is the integration of their hardware and software that sets them apart. Microsoft doesn't care really about how well their software runs, and they certainly don't make or sell the computers it runs on. Apple on the other hand has recognized the success of their products, ease of use, and has translated the success of the early iMac to the iPod and now to the iPhone. Their desktops and notebooks have benefited as well. But they realize that the iPad, like the iPhone and iPod will succeed regardless of what computer and what OS you sync them to.
To say that another company or consortium of companies will come along, perhaps Google, and replicate this sort of model and success is simply stating that it could happen. But nothing about the business workplace and free enterprise suggests this. The marketplace is diverse and fragmented. Companies don't have the foresight to transcend a vision that cooperation can lead to greater success. The short term makes it too hard to buy into long term visions. To suggest a single company will come along and build something like that from the ground up in the face of the current competition, even if it is an existing company such as Google suggests something far too improbable. Does it mean that it absolutely could not happen ever? Well it would be ridiculously to say so with such assuredness because it leave no room for any possibility. But it is still safe to say that no one will replicate it. Apple has become the media/computer/gadget company of this generation and won't be supplanted before any sort of extremely significant technological innovation alters how data and information are stored and processed.
In those respects where this is like an iPod Touch it is just like an iPod Touch! My goodness! And a 13" CRT is just like a 30" Cinema Display (except for the relevant differences) and a Mac Mini is just like a Mac Pro (except for the relevant differences).
Not sure what fact I'm dancing around, the point is that saying 'pfft it's just a large iPod Touch' is a silly dismissal, because everything is 'just' something else. I guess you are disappointed some marketing used the language of 'magical' and 'revolutionary' - maybe you pay more attention to advertising and copy than I do.
While you're holding out hope for some fantasy product that is TRULY AND UTTERLY REVOLUTIONARY I'll try an iPad and buy it if I like it. And if a better product for me comes along, I'll buy that one. I guess you're just more heavily invested in what you hope Apple will do for you.
Some might argue the exact opposite. They sell the hardware (I'm not talking about computers but the iPod/iPhone family) to sell the software.
Hardware is a fixed and one time revenue stream while software (apps, music, etc) is residual income coming in over and over again.
Why do you think printer manufactures sell their printers much cheaper now than they used to? It's because of consumables. They figured out that they can pretty much give away the hardware and make the money back on ink.
Apple sells hardware - and it's pretty pricy compared to the rest of the marketplace. But don't let that fool you into thinking that iTunes isn't really their bread and butter or at least a HUGE profit center for them.
The iPad represents a huge profit center for Apple - but not because of the hardware which they will do ok with. But because (and they know this) all the apps, music, video and now eBooks people will buy to load them up with and continue to do so in the future.
a 13in crt is NOTHING like a 30in lcd... your logic is laughable... please come back when you can form a coherent analogy..
Apple sells approximately 2.5 billion songs annually at 30% share is .75 extrapolating that even with $1.29 songs and full albums prices, assume maybe .85 billion or 850 million in revenue. That's 212.50 million in revenue per quarter, and at an estimated 10-15% profit on the high side instead of break even, no more than 30 million or so in profit for the last quarter. In 18 months or 5-6 quarters, the App store has 3 billion downloads, many of which are free, but assuming that the average price is say $3 on the high end which I would guess it is lower figuring in the free apps and volume of $1 apps represents less than $10 million in profit using the above formula for the last quarter. That would be 40 million, wow maybe even 50 million, say I'm so far off that it is 100 million of the 2.26 billion in quarterly profit. Now I'm sure software also accounted for some profit but I would wager that at most .26 of 2.26 billion in quarterly profit was non-hardware.
If people are arguing the exact opposite, they are ignoring the facts. iTunes Store sales and iPod service and licensing account for 7% of Apple quarterly revenue. Add in other software, service, and licensing and you only have 11% of Apple quarterly revenue. And, of course, iTunes Store sales have far smaller margins than Apple's hardware.
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q110data_sum.pdf
Which leads to interesting questions. IIRC, early jail-broken iPhones got bricked by an Apple firmware update. Apple wants to keep these products tied to their servers to keep the revenue stream active. Will they maintain this posture indefinitely, or will they become tolerant of the JB community? At what point will they decide that their working revenue stream from their servers is enough to keep the iPad subsidy in place? Is there a threshold at which the users/tinkerers on the fringe work to Apple's advantage (simply my getting iPads into more hands)?
A 13" CRT is just like a 30" Cinema display: by ignoring the relevant differences. In the same way, the iPad is just like an iPod Touch: by ignoring the relevant differences.
Besides, most people don't care if it's 'just' a larger iPod Touch. By saying it's just a giant iPod Touch you aren't making any substantive point at all, nobody who is going to buy it cares, it's a good thing that's it like a giant iPod Touch in so many ways.
...but what am i... against such genius... if only my logic wasn't so laughable ...
A 13" CRT is just like a 30" Cinema display: by ignoring the relevant differences. In the same way, the iPad is just like an iPod Touch: by ignoring the relevant differences.
Besides, most people don't care if it's 'just' a larger iPod Touch. By saying it's just a giant iPod Touch you aren't making any substantive point at all, nobody who is going to buy it cares, it's a good thing that's it like a giant iPod Touch in so many ways.
...but what am i... against such genius... if only my logic wasn't so laughable ...
A 13in crt is a CRT....Cathode Ray Tube..
A 30in LCD is a LCD Liquid Crystal Display
2 COMPLETELY different technologies....
Hey a six foot woman is the same as a 7 foot man... well except for the 12in difference in height and gender differences LOL... the 2 MAJOR components that differ from human from another
2 MAJOR components that differ apple one touch device from another would be software and design tech....
Now how completely different is a Ipad over a Itouch....
Again lacking logic....
Different enough that it might matter to lots of people. Different enough that it might change how people use it, which people use it, where they use it, and the apps written for it. Most people don't care if it's 'just' a larger iPod Touch in terms of interface and appearance. By saying it's just a giant iPod Touch you aren't making any substantive point at all. Have another go at missing what's being said though
A 13in crt is a CRT....Cathode Ray Tube..
A 30in LCD is a LCD Liquid Crystal Display
2 COMPLETELY different technologies....
Hey a six foot woman is the same as a 7 foot man... well except for the 12in difference in height and gender differences LOL... the 2 MAJOR components that differ from human from another
2 MAJOR components that differ apple one touch device from another would be software and design tech....
Now how completely different is a Ipad over a Itouch....
Again lacking logic....
Just to make sure I understand you, other than the software, the design, the processor, the screen technology, the wireless technology, the size, and the speed, they are pretty much the same?
Different enough that it might matter to lots of people. Different enough that it might change how people use it, which people use it, where they use it, and the apps written for it. Most people don't care if it's 'just' a larger iPod Touch in terms of interface and appearance. By saying it's just a giant iPod Touch you aren't making any substantive point at all. Have another go at missing what's being said though
I am making a point... its not any different than a Ipod touch...
It not anymore portable than a ipod touch(which is why its so popular)
Its not any more useful than a ipod touch productivity wise...
Its not any better than the market it is trying to replace(netbooks)
It IS better at viewing material.. that about the only benefit I have at the moment...
Would you care to a substantive point as to WHY it is better than and Ipod touch/netbook or laptop?
And if your conclusion is that it is not better, then would you care to tell me what the point of a steamrolled ipod touch is in a market filled with portable devices and portal touch screen devices?
Just to make sure I understand you, other than the software, the design, the processor, the screen technology, the wireless technology, the size, and the speed, they are pretty much the same?
HAHA software is the SAME... remember 3.2 is coming to the iphone/ipt too
Design is the same... thickness, home button, volume rocker, power button, headphone jack.. ALL THE SAME... and yes even the aluminum back is the same as the first gen iphone
The processor is different, but it wont be relavent in a "non-productivity" device... iphone processor and ipt processor work fine...(correction it will help with games)
Screen tech is different... cept, can you put a ips screen on a 3.5in device?
Amoled would be that equivilent I assume
Wireless/speed/processor/screen tech will all be on future ipt and iphone devices so that isnt what makes it different... thats a logical next step..
It's not competing with those things, so I don't have to say why it is better. It's like asking: Why is a monitor better than a mouse?
It is different than an iPod Touch! Just in ways you think don't matter, but they do. They've been listed throughout the thread and elsewhere. It's not supposed to be more portable than an iPod Touch, so that criterion is irrelevant. I don't know how you measured productivity use since the thing isn't out yet and apps aren't developed for it yet.
Because Apple thinks people will like to use it more than those other devices and they are probably right? People can buy what they want, sorry you don't like it, they don't have to justify it at all beyond 'hey this is neat and I want it and I will use it'.
"Oh no, it's just a big iPod Touch that is way fun to use and useful to me, I'd better not buy it because...?"
Of course it is. You have pointed out several differences yourself.
True.
That's just silly. Of course I could be more productive on a larger screen with iWork and a keyboard than I could on an iPod touch.
Plus, a larger screen means less scrolling and screen switching which is an obvious productivity boost in most applications.
That's your opinion. It depends on what a person wants to use it for.
True.
You probably have not put much thought into it then.
I've already pointed out a few ways it is better than an iPod touch. Whether it is better than a netbook depends on how you want to use it. It is lighter and more compact. It is better for reading an eBook. I'd prefer multitouch to a trackpad or nub for web browsing. It boots faster. It wakes from sleep faster. Better viewing angle to share content with others. And then there is the software. Obviously, some software will be better with a multitouch interface than a mouse pointer. Again, it just depends on what you want and need.
Did you miss the part about iPad specific applications? And the OS GUI does have modifications to take advantage of the larger screen.Except for where the design is different. You can start with the larger bezel.
It's only irrelevant because it doesn't fit in with your argument. A faster and more energy efficient processor has many more benefits than games.
So, even though it is different, it isn't really different because it doesn't support your argument.
What exactly is the same? They both run the iPhone OS. And they both are in tablet form factor. Which was pretty much inevitable for an Apple tablet.
LOL a monitor versus and mouse?? Where do you pull your logic from...
Here ill help you...
It like saying why is a microsoft laser mouse is better than a Microsoft IR mouse..
see how that works?
If you think you can be more productive(input/output wise) on a 9.7in touch screen device, than a 10in netbook... I have some land to sell you...
People can buy what they want, but if they try to hold it up like its the second coming... that what I have a problem with... I have a problem with people being delusional and making up stuff in regards to why they want to buy a Ipad... that is my only beef...
because, its not better than your ipod touch... "to me"