Re: NEWS: Microsoft's dual-screen booklet shows 'face' on web • The Register

John Navas wrote:
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/>
>
> Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.
>

The iPad is Apple's entry into the Netbook market IMO. I
think the iPad killer will be better more powerful netbooks that
are powered by laptop CPUs and graphics. The iPad uses watered
down everything and I don't know how well it will do given the
netbook market and how the typical netbook is far more powerful
and versatile than the iPad.

John

John Slade wrote:
> The iPad uses watered down everything and I
> don't know how well it will do given the netbook market and how the
> typical netbook is far more powerful and versatile than the iPad.

Not everyone wants (or needs) the most powerful and versatile item. For
many people, ease of use is far more important, and this is where
Apple's design often excels over other items in the marketplace. The
reason the iPod became the dominant mp3 player was because it is easy to
use - not just to play music but also to load/buy music. The reason the
iPhone has become such a dominant phone/web/music appliance is again,
it's very easy to use, including an easy way to add applications. If
Apple is as successful with the iPad's design, there's every reason to
believe that a large percent of the market will find "easy to use" and
"powerful enough" to be compelling reasons to buy, trumping "more
powerful" and "more versatile" but harder to use products from other
computer manufacturers.

jc

John Slade wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/>
>>
>>
>> Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.
>>
>
> The iPad is Apple's entry into the Netbook market IMO. I think
> the iPad killer will be better more powerful netbooks that are powered
> by laptop CPUs and graphics. The iPad uses watered down everything and I
> don't know how well it will do given the netbook market and how the
> typical netbook is far more powerful and versatile than the iPad.

I bet the iPad is going to be a _huge_ seller. It's not a netbook
competitor (that's the MacBook Air), it's a whole new segment.

iPad is going to be huge in the kids market. iPhone users probably won't
buy it because they don't want to pay another $30 a month in addition to
the $70+/month they are already paying. At least there's a lot of apps
that are more than just games, unlike the Nintendo DS/DSi.

If someone figures out how to get a USB port onto it it could have a lot
of vertical market applications as well.

John Slade wrote:
> JC Dill wrote:
>> John Slade wrote:
>>> The iPad uses watered down everything and I don't know how well it
>>> will do given the netbook market and how the typical netbook is far
>>> more powerful and versatile than the iPad.
>>
>> Not everyone wants (or needs) the most powerful and versatile item.
>> For many people, ease of use is far more important,
>
> I think ease of use means you can go on the Internet and use
> every web site without any problem. As it is, the iPad does not support
> Adobe Flash and a lot of web sites use flash extensively.

Well maybe Apple is the only company that can make a stand against the
extensive use of Flash.

SMS wrote:
> John Slade wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/06/microsoft_courier_details_report/>
>>>
>>>
>>> Could be an iPad killer -- Microsoft may have finally got one right.
>>>
>>
>> The iPad is Apple's entry into the Netbook market IMO. I think
>> the iPad killer will be better more powerful netbooks that are powered
>> by laptop CPUs and graphics. The iPad uses watered down everything and
>> I don't know how well it will do given the netbook market and how the
>> typical netbook is far more powerful and versatile than the iPad.
>
> I bet the iPad is going to be a _huge_ seller. It's not a netbook
> competitor (that's the MacBook Air), it's a whole new segment.
>

If you saw the keynote speech where Jobs introduced it,
you can easily see it's targeted at the netbook market. Even
before that Jobs was telling reporters he was working on a
netbook-type device.

> iPad is going to be huge in the kids market. iPhone users probably won't
> buy it because they don't want to pay another $30 a month in addition to
> the $70+/month they are already paying. At least there's a lot of apps
> that are more than just games, unlike the Nintendo DS/DSi.

I don't see the iPad being big in the "kids' market"
because of it's price and capabilities. More popular games are
on cheaper devices more suited to gaming. I can see the iPad
being more successful in the e-book reader market if the price
comes down.

>
> If someone figures out how to get a USB port onto it it could have a lot
> of vertical market applications as well.

It comes with a USB port via the adapter that comes with it.

John

John Slade wrote:

> I don't see the iPad being big in the "kids' market" because of
> it's price and capabilities. More popular games are on cheaper devices
> more suited to gaming. I can see the iPad being more successful in the
> e-book reader market if the price comes down.

I'm sure you're going to be proven wrong. Parents spend $1000-1500 on
DVD systems for their kids to watch movies in the car. $500 to keep the
kids busy in the car, and then having the iPad to use at the destination
via WiFi (instead of carrying a laptop) is going to make it the
must-have kid's toy of 2010.

>
> It comes with a USB port via the adapter that comes with it.

No it doesn't. It's not a USB host port. You can't plug in various
peripherals that the vertical market needs, like bar code scanners,
cameras, blood glucose meters, scales, blood-pressure cuffs, etc.. Apple
is not interested in those vertical markets because they don't involve
selling apps, music, videos, and books to the buyers.

Steve Fenwick wrote:
> In article <4b930a4b$0$1632$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> John Slade wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see the iPad being big in the "kids' market" because of
>>> it's price and capabilities. More popular games are on cheaper devices
>>> more suited to gaming. I can see the iPad being more successful in the
>>> e-book reader market if the price comes down.
>> I'm sure you're going to be proven wrong. Parents spend $1000-1500 on
>> DVD systems for their kids to watch movies in the car. $500 to keep the
>> kids busy in the car, and then having the iPad to use at the destination
>> via WiFi (instead of carrying a laptop) is going to make it the
>> must-have kid's toy of 2010.
>>
>>> It comes with a USB port via the adapter that comes with it.
>> No it doesn't. It's not a USB host port. You can't plug in various
>> peripherals that the vertical market needs, like bar code scanners,
>> cameras, blood glucose meters, scales, blood-pressure cuffs, etc.. Apple
>> is not interested in those vertical markets because they don't involve
>> selling apps, music, videos, and books to the buyers.
>
> It is more likely USB OTG than USB device, as it supports the external
> keyboard (<http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/>, near the bottom), and the
> iPad Camera Connection Kit, which allows a camera to be connected to the
> iPad through USB.

But it's not a general purpose USB port, the OS only supports stuff like
the camera kit and keyboard. You can't plug in stuff like external disk
drives, optical drives etc. Perhaps someone will figure out how to do this.

SMS wrote:
> John Slade wrote:
>> JC Dill wrote:
>>> John Slade wrote:
>>>> The iPad uses watered down everything and I don't know how well it
>>>> will do given the netbook market and how the typical netbook is far
>>>> more powerful and versatile than the iPad.
>>>
>>> Not everyone wants (or needs) the most powerful and versatile item.
>>> For many people, ease of use is far more important,
>>
>> I think ease of use means you can go on the Internet and use
>> every web site without any problem. As it is, the iPad does not
>> support Adobe Flash and a lot of web sites use flash extensively.
>
> Well maybe Apple is the only company that can make a stand against the
> extensive use of Flash.

Stand against Flash? Don't make me laugh, oh wait, it's
too late for that. Apple is not producing an alternative to
Flash. There are alternatives like Silverlight, HTML5 and
others. I think the main reason Apple didn't want to implement
Flash is the same reason other mobile devices didn't use it. The
iPad is not powerful enough to run Flash well. However during
the development of the iPad, Adobe has put out a mobile version
of Flash that seems to work well for many devices. Why Apple
didn't work with Adobe to put it on the iPad is anyone's guess.
I guess Job's playing up the shortcomings of Flash prevents him
from adopting the mobile version for use on the iPhone, iPad and
iPod Touch.

I don't think Apple is being the lone voice against the
overuse of Flash even though it is overused. Maybe if Apple had
not allowed Flash to run on OS X, then I might change my mind
but that's not the case.

John

In article <hmvr2d$o36$(E-Mail Removed)>,
John Slade <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I don't think Apple is being the lone voice against the
> overuse of Flash even though it is overused. Maybe if Apple had
> not allowed Flash to run on OS X, then I might change my mind
> but that's not the case.

Flash runs very well under OS X of course, it has too, or OS X would
have long since disappeared. It's banned from other Apple devices for
reasons I don't understand.

Adobe have some very tasty open-source (and free) software these days
too. Flex 4 (Gumbo) is fun -- develop serious Flash "apps" with emacs
and mxml. Flash isn't going to go away because iSteve is "taking a
stand" or some such nonsense. Same with Winders, for that matter.
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:09:23 -0800, SMS wrote:

> I think it's not that. Flash uses a lot of processing power, and hence a
> lot of battery power. Performance and battery life suffer. Better to not
> allow them and make up a story about them being unstable.

Really? Why would Apple lie about why an Adobe product sucks? Surely the
truth is worse than the lie they made up [and I assume Apple want this to
look like Adobe's fault here]?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
19:40:06 up 20 days, 31 min, 4 users, load average: 0.08, 0.04, 0.01
It is better to have been wasted and then sober
than to never have been wasted at all