So, after watching the keynote last night, I figured I'd try to clarify this from Apple's point of view (but not necessarily defend it). Basically Apple is trying to justify this device as a 3rd category, between the iPhone and a MacBook. His point was that for a product to sit in that space, it has to be better at certain tasks then the phone or laptop. Netbooks are just cheep underpowered laptops running the same software, so they don't do anything better then a laptop, and don't create a third category. They instead cut into another category, and frustrate users who are trying to replace a laptop with a netbook.

I can see what they are trying to do, but for me, (and many of us here), that third category seems kinda pointless. We are all fine with keeping the laptop around the couch to surf, or using the iPhone in bed. The one part about the iPad that would be nice is the book reading. I can't stand reading on the iPhone, it's just too small. The laptop method is ok, but you have to deal with an L shaped device, and can't specifically curl up into comfortable reading positions like you can with a real book. So I can see the eBook angle, though I already bought a Nook for that.

Long term, what would sell me on an iPad would be better integration. It's really stupid that it has to sync over USB. I want to be able to pull media in from my desktop (or better, my home NAS) without having to go to the computer. This is already possible on the AppleTV, so it's really puzzling why the iPad can't just connect to a shared iTunes library. Beyond that, I want Avatar like computing. There was a scene where a scientist was working at a station, and transferred what he was monitoring to a pad like device. If I could do similar easily, even if the main computing was being run on the desktop, it would make the device so much more appealing. I want to take the IM conversation I'm having with me. I want to take the current game state of my SimCity on my iPhone and run it on the iPad. But neither is possible, even from a manual corded syncing route.

Apple built a really nice piece of hardware, but it needs software to really help it become a third category. It needs to allow me to move between any of the three categories and continue working. I'm already frustrated by the inability to sync my instant messenger state between computer and phone, adding a third device is just going to make it worse.

What Tom said. Perfect.

I do think this is a third category, but I feel that for me, this category is still not as well fleshed out as it could be. Some people complain because they want a whole Mac in a tablet format. I'd not advocate that. If someone wants that they can go ahead and pick up a ModBook or if they prefer Windows, one of those other random machines. I think a device like this needs to be purpose built, including from an OS POV, to truly define this third category.

Like Tom, I see a bunch of things missing. I'm actually sad they're missing from the iPhone platform as well and I've mentioned them here before, including the lack of a more versatile and centralized document storage area that can be used by multiple applications. Wireless connectivity for sync can probably chew through a ton of battery on a large transfer, but you don't have to sync everything all at once each and every time. Document hand-off is a great feature. I'm not sure Apple will get there in an appreciable amount of time.

Unfortunately I don't think the features we're talking about significantly enough affect the bottom line. I'm sure everyone would love them, but how many extra sales will they absolutely guarantee?

Well, the OS on the iPad is clearly not purpose-built. Are you saying that the iPad hints at a third category that it does not define?

How about any other tablet manufacturer versus the iPad. When *your* best ideas for using it are "nice large-screened Squeezebox", "amazing digital picture frame", and "remote control for your music collection", I think you've illustrated how narrow the market is for this overgrown iPod Touch.

And how about any major laptop manufacturer versus the current low-end laptop lineup? My wife needed a new computer, and when I was looking at a laptop for her, there was no question that I'd be buying a Mac. The cost of that requirement was several hundred dollars, and that allows for a couple hundred more in value assigned to higher quality hardware and nicer design. In terms of value to someone who doesn't care about the OS, the low end laptops are waaaay behind PC laptops. This is demonstrated by the fact that Apple's laptop market share growth has leveled off at a time when Microsoft has fumbled their entire OS strategy for a couple of years. Look, *I* value OS X and the Apple hardware very highly but most people don't value it at $400.

Only one at a time, though!

No, I'm saying that the iPhone/iPad OS is purpose-built for touch, regardless of screen size. There are limitations on interaction, but I think the additions to the SDK have done an adequate job of supplying developers with the tools they need to roll out some great new applications.

Tony, your points don't directly address the original comment I quoted. No one produces anything like this at any price. No one else can at this moment in time either. Even MSI has announced their tablet is going to cost $500 and it's not going to have jack for touch-enabled apps.

I don't see how someone buying any Apple product is getting robbed, let alone "these" Apple products mentioned in that quote, which infers iPhone and iPad. No one else makes anything remotely similar to the iPhone at a price that can be considered "much lower." No one else makes a tablet with this complete a feature set at any price.

So the iPhone defined (or at least solidified) a third category, and it happened to also be a member of the cellphone category. I can agree with that.

What is it that the iPad contributed? Lack of portability?

What? I'm not following any more. I thought the iPhone was category #2. The tablet is the third. But I suppose numbers don't matter.

This category has been around for a long time, but no one has managed to define it as well as Apple has. Even though most of us agree that it's not terribly well defined. It's still the best defined it's ever been. Well enough defined that no one (by this I mean the general public) is going to know any other tablets even exist.

Again, this device isn't for me, but I'm not going to argue nor bet against it doing well.

That's such a hand-wave. The comparison to be made is the form factor, and each side brings things to the table. The fact that Apple has multitouch and others don't does not mean you can't compare them to products that are similar in other ways -- you just need to assign value to the touch interface. And, just as a touch interface has a measurable financial value on a tablet, so does having a real operating system that can run real applications. So does handwriting recognition. So does the ability to run Microsoft Office instead of iWork. Etc. etc. etc. You can't just shrug off a comparison because Apple took a tablet form factor and added one feature (or really, just promoted that feature from its phone lineup and tried to convince everyone it was an innovation.)

What is it that this can do better than, say, a theoretical MacSlate Pro, or an iPod Touch?

If the iPhone is Cat2, Cat3 requires a purpose-built OS, and the iPad runs the same OS as the (Cat2) iPhone, how is it that the iPad can be Cat3?

Purpose-built versus a desktop OS. The iPhone OS is clearly suitable for both types of devices. Yes, I'd like to see some multi-taskign as well, but the OS is purpose-built for a touch UI. In fact it was first conceived of and tested not with the iPhone, but the precursor to a tablet computer.

You don't have to consider a Mac-Slate as theoretical. Here's one right here:

http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook

It even has a pressure sensitive screen.

BTW, has anyone actually watched the keynote?

Tonyc: Again, name one (not five, not 3 not even 2, just one) product that offers what the iPad does at any price. Even 10x the price if it needs to extend out that far. The only stipulation is that the product has to be out now or have been announced/demonstrated as a real product. Even Microsoft's Surface costs more than 10x and it's not easily carried around without a pickup truck.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I won't be buying this product this year. Feel free to follow my lead. I'm not sure I know anyone that will buy this product either. But I do know that a lot of people I've never met or talked to will buy it. Could the keynote have been bigger and more exciting? Not with this type of product, IMO. A lot of people are let down due to unrealistic expectations, like believing Apple would talk about anything other than this product at this keynote.

Personally, I don't have an itch that this type/class of product can scratch/satisfy, but many others do. And I think it's well enough executed, even with its missing pieces, to do well enough to finally establish the category and make Apple enough money to warrant keeping it going and producing a myriad of revisions.

Yeah, they're pretty neat. Good luck getting an Apple Expert to look at one, though.

Any current-generation smartphone, basically.

Literally, the iPad's only advantage is that it's big.

That will be mitigated somewhat with the introduction of the iWorks tools, but there's still not apparently any video output. I can't imagine any "road warrior" is going to want to show his PowerPoint/Keynote by passing the iPad around.

That's not the point. The point is that if you want such a product, even if only to demo, test whatever, there's something there for you to do so with. The ultimate point is that this type of product is, like all other tablet PCs, a very niche product. Tablets in general are niche. The iPad is the first thing to potentially expand the market for this form factor.




I'm not familiar with that product. I took a look but couldn't find a match for brand nor model name for "any."

But... Maybe you're saying then that the iPad doesn't do anything that the iPhone doesn't already do? Did you watch the keynote?

Or are you comparing the iPhone to other Smart Phones? In that case what other remotely similar smart phones cost less? Have even 1/1000th of the quality app selection (ignoring the crap apps of which there are many)

Anyway, no one has named a single product yet. You know, actually name it. By name.

The iPad does do one thing better... it isn't slower than fucking evolution apparently.

The original quote that spawned this tangent asked for the names of companies who provide better value, not specific devices. So asking for specific products is moving the goalposts.

I don't follow the tablet market closely enough to name model numbers, but Dell, HP, and Lenovo all make capable tablet PCs. The screens are all larger, they often have a physical keyboard available, and they run a true multitasking operating system, so they cost more. Any of them, to me, would have more value because of those factors, despite my preference for OS X over windows.

In other words, the iPhone OS is so stripped down, I'd rather run Windows.

Now, your value equation and mine are obviously different, and neither of ours matches the "average consumer." But you seem to be saying that a touch interface and some smooth app integration outweighs all the negatives in comparison to a tablet or a netbook, and I think you've failed to make that case. I've mentioned several places where Apple's value equation is suspect for most people but you haven't responded to those points. If we're going to talk past each other, I'll move on to another conversation.

To answer your other question, I watched Engadget's liveblog of the keynote but don't have a full hour+ to dedicate to watching the same material in video form.

Tony (c), you're misquoting me and you're misquoting my pasted quote. No one's talking about value in any sense. That can be a very subjective thing to slice. The original quote was that there are multiple other companies producing devices which have both more technology and features/functionality and are cheaper than the iPod/iPhone and iPad. In fact, "far cheaper" to be exact. Here's the quote again. I posted it along with its context as well as my rebuttal.



This is just a typical BS commenter's remark because they don't know the industry (any industry) at all. They wouldn't be able to name a single product to back up their comment. I didn't even ask how they felt like buying an iPhone or iPad is getting "robbed."

You could take the iPad hardware, put a new logo on it (let's say HP) and load it up with Windows and sell it at the same price. Is it more functional than what was demonstrated yesterday? Fuck no.

Anyway proof is in the pudding. Let's see how well this obvious POS product does compared to the rest of the industry. My prediction? They'll outsell all other tablet computers combined. Likely in units and profit.

That is exactly what I'm saying. I've yet to see anything that indicates otherwise. Feel free to point out what those things are. The few new apps are nice, but they're still basically just iPhone apps.

There is a difference in form factor that is useful in certain situations, but it's not some mythical new category of device, whereas I would agree that the iPhone was, if not revolutionary, a huge evolutionary step.

I don't think either were revolutionary. Nor do I think mythical or magical. I'm far too jaded for that.

While I don't think either the iPhone/iPod Touch nor iPad are magical nor mythical, I do believe they are revolutionary. At least that the iPhone/iPod are and the iPad will be. I'm jaded, so I don't often say "wow" - but I can usually see the bigger picture. And as far as the iPhone goes, it's already recorded as part of history.

But seriously Bitt, you didn't watch the keynote, it's obvious. My impression was "meh" but even with all my jaded experience in these industries, I can clearly see where there are benefits and many obvious differentiators. Here's one morsel: None of the iPad versions of the default apps, other than Safari, look anything at all like the iPhone/iPod versions.

I took away a lot more from watching the keynote than any of the press or blog coverage I checked out this morning. And I completely trust that the device is even more impressive when used first-hand. I doubt I'd have to wipe any drool or lift my jaw from the floor, but I suspect I'd think the thing was marginally cooler than it seems to be via online keynote viewing. But again, that's just me. I'm confident many other people will be far more impressed.

BTW, did you take the same stand with the cornucopia of eBook readers?

There are going to be overlaps in the categories. But the best way to look at it is that the iPhone and iPod touch are less powerful scaled-down tablets. Not the other way around. It's not for me and it sounds like it's not for you. BUt it's for a lot of other people. Do I think I could come up with some stuff to make it even cooler? Sure. That doesn't matter though, lots of people can do that too. It won't detract from what it is today versus what else is out there (and coming in the next 6 months)

My biggest criticism of Apple for yesterday's announcement? The name of the product. It's already been trademarked by Fujitsu in 2002, including an application to register that mark. If Apple wanted to object to the mark on grounds it was to similar to iPod they should have done it years ago. But to object today is ridiculous. Everyone else noticed that Apple isn't claiming a trademark on iPad at the moment, right? Have the creativity to come up with something better and if you don't at least have the balls to just bloody pay Fujitsu a one-time license.

I don't need Steve blowing smoke up my ass to make a conclusion based on the device's specs.


But you apparently can't state them. I'm asking you to show me what situation would make an iPad worth $500 or more for any significant number of people.


I thought the hardware was neat, but there was very little point to them until the Kindle showed up. The fact that Amazon had a very large selection of books to purchase and the fact that it didn't need any sort of separate computer made it worthwhile. Unlike MP3 players, there was no practical way to get your existing library into digital form, which made the need for direct purchase of software a necessity.

The Kindle (and its successors) have the possibility of revolutionizing the book industry, and possibly saving it (not to mention a few billion trees). I don't know that it will, but it's caught on reasonably well so far. It's clearly not a failure.


Okay, so we're back to saying that the iPhone is in the same category as the iPad, which the iPad apparently invented, despite that the iPhone preceded it by several years.

Is my Nexus One a scaled-down not-less-powerful tablet?

To me, features divided by price equals value. "Features" includes things like "runs a real operating system." Netbooks run a real operating system. Not my favorite OS, but a legitimate OS that consumers enjoy using. For many consumers, that feature alone can outweigh out a lot of iPad's innovations. Same goes for the physical keyboard that netbooks and many tablets have.

You really seem to be setting the parameters of the debate to your liking here by refusing to acknowledge that a real multitasking operating system is, in fact, a "feature" that other netbooks and tablets have that certainly supports the position of the person you quoted. People out there like their Windows and they like their Office suite and they (guh) like their Flash. They like physical keyboards. They like multitasking. Do you think these things don't matter at all?

I've responded by pointing out where Apple is *not* providing value with this device, and where other notebook and netbook makers are. Does any one device from any one company match up with the iPad spec-for-spec? Of course not, if they did then they'd have already invented the iPad. The point is, the original quote is correct -- there are devices that have more to offer to most consumers and are cheaper.



Actually, you could sell it for more, because it would have a legitimate operating system on it that can run real applications, and multitask them. I hates me some Windows, but in a choice between an iPad and your theoretical WinPad, I'm taking the WinPad, and I'm sure I'd have plenty of company.

I didn't mean you should watch the keynote to listen to Steve. I've already mentioned that he wasn't his usual self anyway. You should watch it to see the device in use.

The iPad will allow you to buy books directly on the device. Those books can include color images, moving images, video. They can and will include text books, magazines and newspapers. We're in agreement that this is a nice feature that isn't currently terribly practical on the iPod/iPhone, right? I mean you said it already about the Kindle, a device that until recently cost $350, had a shit display, was slow, crippled with a small screen and lets Amazon delete your books at will.

This device will let people do whatever it is they want to do on a tablet that current tablets have been unable to do. YMMV

Seriously, to the lay person, this thing just looks cool and that's enough reason for at least some sales. Why does the iPhone completely dominate all Android phones and Palm in sales? What does it do? It's something different to different people and it's not only one thing.

A category of device doesn't mean that one category can't be based on another. You strip down a workstation computer to make a notebook computer, then you strip that down to make a tablet. You strip down a tablet to make a phone. Easy to say, easy to understand. Execution requires "the whole package" and I'm arguing that enough of the package is here this time that hasn't been here before, to make that critical difference. You'll need a spreadsheet to count sales, rather than your fingers.

For some people this will make an ideal way to surf the web. Being able to read a web page as if you're reading a magazine had its strengths. No input devices to worry about, no moving parts, super long lasting battery.

I can see some people putting together a presentation with this product where they can't with a computer. I'm talking about ease of use more-so than portability here.

Photo viewing will be a big deal for others. Could make a very nice machine to have kicking around as a photo album. Here's one of the places where it would be nice to have some streaming ability - but that can be added by third party viewers of course.

Apple as a company being the producer will automatically add to the bottom line. Not because of the "hey this device is cool" factor I mentioned before. Simply because of track record and reliability. Trust for many people.

When someone buys a netbook, they may think, wow, this this is a piece of shit notebook. When someone buys this thing, they're going to think, damn, I can't believe this thing only cost $500. Sure, I'd like to see it at $300, but that's totally unrealistic if Apple is to make a decent ROI.

This POS is going to do well. Not iPhone-well, but well enough. I think you need to realize that I'm not trying to sell it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to like it or buy it. I'm in the place of an anthropologist here observing the reactions from a wide variety of people and making some hypothesis. You're talking to a person who thought, and for the large part still thinks, that tablets are mostly useless. I'm attempting to remove my my personal opinion/bias when trying to look at this thing.

When you start a discussion on a particular point you can feel free to set the parameters. I set them true, so if you're gong to rebut, you should stay within them. I've stayed within the parameters set in the original quote. Name on device. Come on. Seriously, I'm not trying to get into some meta discussion here. I'm not yanking your chain, why do you continue to yank mine?

Take the iPhone - go: what other phone offers MORE for MUCH less price?

Take the iPad: What tablet computer offers more for much less price?

One of each, taking into account software and hardware. I don't care if the other devices have a desktop OS or not, it's all fair game. Just give me one device within each of the above categories that gives you MORE for LESS.



That has nothing to do with the point I proposed. Because there aren't devices that have those things in the category of the iPad or iPhone that cost less as the original quote stated.

As to how much they matter, which is a different topic, I propose that they matter a lot. But not in the way you're thinking. I think that had the tablet been a Mac, it would not sell as well. The proof will be in the sales. I can't think of a single existing or previous tablet computer that has done anything meaningful in volume sales. Nothing that has established a long-running brand. No one has had any success at tablet computing yet.

So if, as you say, all those things matter the most, we'll see the iPad fail and one or more other tablet products shine. Like I said, I stand by my hypothesis that the iPad will trump each and every other tablet device, even if you add all their totals and accomplishments together. I'll go one further. I'm including all devices that have existed in the past, have been announced and will be announced this year.



Other what? Don't you mean other tablet makers? We're not talking about disposable computers and notebooks.



You're trying to re-write the quote, even in spirit. All I've asked for is the name of one single product that matches up in capabilities in the appropriate category and is much cheaper. While you tell me there are devices out there, you still haven't mentioned a single one. Don't even write the name if you don't want to. you can paste a link to a product page or review.

You do know that you're trying to tell me that there are tons of colours and shades out there while I'm stating that "white is the brightest."



Regular desktop operating system on a tablet? Ask all the PC makers that have tried this recipe how it's worked out for them. Maybe I've already set the stage for the future products that will kill the iPad in the market place both in terms of sales and profits. We'll see how that plays out.

Shit because its eInk?

No, eInk has great promise and has come a long way. The first devices didn't have as many shades nor as high contrast as new devices. Plus they were slower at refreshing.

I'd love to have some color eInk action right now actually. In fact I'm hoping the technology will come sooner rather than later and we can see a nice color eInk picture frame. I think having an image without a backlight that needs no power to maintain would make the ultimate digital picture frame.

They'll also make great readers. The Kindle and related readers aren't going to be mass-market until they come well below $100. And even then... I don't think the iPad is mass-market like music or the iPod or even the iPhone btw.

I'm still unsure what specifically makes the Kindle display shit. There isn't a Kindle 3 with a newer eInk display therefore its shit?

Amazon has revised the screen of the kindle at least twice already since the original. Not including the larger DX model.

The original had only four shades. The Kindle 2 screen has sixteen. Four, and the original Kindle screen, is what I call "shit." The newer global revision of the Kindle has an even better screen with darker blacks and even greater contrast. It's not a Kindle 3, but it's the third revision of the Kindle product anyway.

Anyway... The global Kindle 2 is just about the best eInk reader out there right now, IMO. The Nook needs some updates, but I think it could be the best (if the updates it needs are possible in software).

I'm not sure how you define mass-market, but in my view anything that tops a billion dollars in sales and sells as many units as Apple did iPods ought to qualify.

Source

tanstaafl.