-
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
I guess it turns out that people actually would prefer to be spoon fed their computer software. Big Brother Apple will make everything OK.
Not all persons.... Some would rather use Google (Android) and have Microsoft style freedom with Linux quality...
But you do raise a good point. I only mentioned Apple being expensive, but the lack of freedom to do what you want is a turn off to many persons... It's why I'm more interested in upcoming Android Tablets (like the Motorola Xoom) than the iPad....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
I guess it turns out that people actually would prefer to be spoon fed their computer software. Big Brother Apple will make everything OK.
Consumers just want their computing devices to work with a minimum of fuss and frustration. They'd rather have their computing devices serve their needs than the other way around. A lot of techies and hackers seem to prefer it the other way around.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
what's in: analogue {sic: British spelling}, tubes, and lot's of love!
Oh, puke. :crazy:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Consumers just want their computing devices to work with a minimum of fuss and frustration. They'd rather have their computing devices serve their needs than the other way around. A lot of techies and hackers seem to prefer it the other way around.
This is true I suppose - I certainly hate it when my Window phone craps out. But it more drops the signal randomly - not while on calls - but just going about - than anything else.
I've been eying an iPad for notes at up coming shows. Seems so much more simple than paper/pens/cheat sheets - if it only had a bomb camera on it that would take video. And if shows had floor wide wifi. .... hummm....
-adam
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicAdam
This is true I suppose - I certainly hate it when my Window phone craps out. But it more drops the signal randomly - not while on calls - but just going about - than anything else.
I've been eying an iPad for notes at up coming shows. Seems so much more simple than paper/pens/cheat sheets - if it only had a bomb camera on it that would take video. And if shows had floor wide wifi. .... hummm....
-adam
Which is why if an Apple tablet doesn't have all the features you need, you can look for Android...
However if an Apple product does all you want it to do, I'd probably stick with Apple...
-
No. But, why is eliminating the letterboxing such a issue in the first place? The 16:9 aspect ratio is the standard for home theater use, and there's no getting around that without zooming or stretching the image.[/QUOTE]
ITS a HUGE issue for some, who just don't "get" letterboxing, don't understand it, and don't like it, especially older people. Its a constant complaint for most of the people I help.
My new LG has comprehensive aspect ratio controls, more than the usual zoom, wide,
and normal. I prefer the original aspect, and don't mind the bars, but its nice to be able to closely fit a pic on a screen with little picture loss if I want.
FYI, you can zoom a lot of 4:3 material with little loss of anything important, especially concerts. The same eye scanning pattern 16:9 was made for tends to put a lot of the
picture info in the middle of the screen without realizing it.:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
But you do raise a good point. I only mentioned Apple being expensive, but the lack of freedom to do what you want is a turn off to many persons... It's why I'm more interested in upcoming Android Tablets (like the Motorola Xoom) than the iPad....
I'm glad that you actually addressed this issue correctly. Much of the blathering I read about Android goes on and on about "freedom" primarily in the context of its roots as an "open" OS.
The thing to remember about Apple is that they don't follow the typical techie obsession with spec sheets and feature checklists. They'd rather leave a feature out than include a half-assed implementation just to add another line to a checklist. Fueling feature creep was Microsoft's MO (and probably still is). It got them kudos from jaded tech reviewers, but it also made their software ever more convoluted, illogical, resource-hogging, and buggy.
Whether you agree with him or not, Steve Jobs has in the past said that he's just as proud of what Apple chooses to leave out as what they include. In a way, that's a very important angle that they're playing in the consumer market. They focus on getting a limited set of features right (at least right in their view), than trying to shoehorn every conceivable feature into a device even if many of the implementations are mediocre.
With Android, I get the impression that they're heading down the same path as MS -- focus more on packing more stuff than getting all that stuff right before it goes out. And the "freedom" in that platform does not always benefit consumers, as evidenced by the lack of a consistent upgrade path across the entire platform (rooting and installing hacked firmware does not count), the increasing control exercised by carriers, and huge number of spyware apps that have been posted onto the Android Marketplace.
As far as Android tablets announced at CES, all but the Motorola Xoom will come with 2.2, the version that not even Google recommends using for tablets. This leaves a fair amount of uncertainty as to which Android tablets will support version 3.0 when it comes out later this year.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
I'm glad that you actually addressed this issue correctly. Much of the blathering I read about Android goes on and on about "freedom" primarily in the context of its roots as an "open" OS.
The thing to remember about Apple is that they don't follow the typical techie obsession with spec sheets and feature checklists. They'd rather leave a feature out than include a half-assed implementation just to add another line to a checklist. Fueling feature creep was Microsoft's MO (and probably still is). It got them kudos from jaded tech reviewers, but it also made their software ever more convoluted, illogical, resource-hogging, and buggy.
Whether you agree with him or not, Steve Jobs has in the past said that he's just as proud of what Apple chooses to leave out as what they include. In a way, that's a very important angle that they're playing in the consumer market. They focus on getting a limited set of features right (at least right in their view), than trying to shoehorn every conceivable feature into a device even if many of the implementations are mediocre.
With Android, I get the impression that they're heading down the same path as MS -- focus more on packing more stuff than getting all that stuff right before it goes out. And the "freedom" in that platform does not always benefit consumers, as evidenced by the lack of a consistent upgrade path across the entire platform (rooting and installing hacked firmware does not count), the increasing control exercised by carriers, and huge number of spyware apps that have been posted onto the Android Marketplace.
As far as Android tablets announced at CES, all but the Motorola Xoom will come with 2.2, the version that not even Google recommends using for tablets. This leaves a fair amount of uncertainty as to which Android tablets will support version 3.0 when it comes out later this year.
We basically agree... Apple is about getting the features right: It just works...
Google is very much about more Microsoft style choices but with a much better underlying OS... Google is a competitor to both Microsoft and Apple as they are launching products with 'a bit' of the best of both worlds... Not quite as refined as Apple but also not as tightly controlled... While it is true that consumers just want a product to work, it also needs to do the basics you need... Apple sometimes leaves out what many consumers consider basics (cameras, flash support, etc in the case of the iPad)...
You are very much mistaken about the Motorola Xoom... The Xoom will be the first Android tablet to use version 3.0 'Honeycomb', which is why it is so special...
http://cnettv.cnet.com/motorola-xoom...contentBody;2n
http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US...US-EN.overview
Some manufacturers (Samsung for example) opted to use the older Android phone OS' on their tablets as they wanted to rush out an iPad competitor, rather than wait on the tablet OS (honeycomb) to be released. That impatience will likely cost them in the long run when customers realize they're missing out on the real android tablet experience... scenarios like that is where Apple has a real advantage as they control both hard and software so no half-assed products can be released to market (unless they choose to release it)...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
No. But, why is eliminating the letterboxing such a issue in the first place? The 16:9 aspect ratio is the standard for home theater use, and there's no getting around that without zooming or stretching the image.
ITS a HUGE issue for some, who just don't "get" letterboxing, don't understand it, and don't like it, especially older people. Its a constant complaint for most of the people I help.
My new LG has comprehensive aspect ratio controls, more than the usual zoom, wide,
and normal. I prefer the original aspect, and don't mind the bars, but its nice to be able to closely fit a pic on a screen with little picture loss if I want.
FYI, you can zoom a lot of 4:3 material with little loss of anything important, especially concerts. The same eye scanning pattern 16:9 was made for tends to put a lot of the
picture info in the middle of the screen without realizing it.:1:[/quote]
I've never understood why letterboxing is hard to understand or much of a problem: can you explain?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
We basically agree... Apple is about getting the features right: It just works...
Google is very much about more Microsoft style choices but with a much better underlying OS... Google is a competitor to both Microsoft and Apple as they are launching products with 'a bit' of the best of both worlds... Not quite as refined as Apple but also not as tightly controlled... While it is true that consumers just want a product to work, it also needs to do the basics you need... Apple sometimes leaves out what many consumers consider basics (cameras, flash support, etc in the case of the iPad)...
The tight control though has begun cutting both ways. Android might not require you to go through a particular app store and has more customization options available to the end user. But, the gatekeeper for the platform is the carrier, which means that they control whether any uninstallable crapware or GUI overlays get shipped with your phone, and the timing and availability of any Android OS updates.
In the case of the "missing" features on the iPad, that's something that a lot of tech reviewers zoomed in on. But, again they're coming at it from the perspective of spec sheets and checklists. They didn't bother to look at what the iPad got right as a 1.0 product. Some of the "missing" features got added via OS update, and the cameras are likely coming in a couple of months when the iPad 2 comes out.
As far as Flash goes, you're talking to someone who uses Flash blockers on every web browser. Blocking Flash has significantly sped up my web browsing and virtually eliminated the frequent crashes I experienced before (and this is with PC and Mac alike). The sooner we can relegate that POS to the dustbin of history, the better.
Which makes Google's announcement that they will drop support for H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC) in Chrome all the more suspect. They claim that going exclusively to the WebM codec is because it's "open" (note thought that Google owns IP for WebM), but they've effectively forced everybody using Chrome to also use Flash for H.264 video.
Basically, they're trying to move HTML5 towards the inferior WebM codec that has zero hardware support with current devices, and away from a higher performing codec that has 100% industry support and hardware support on hundreds of millions of devices. And if they're removing H.264 because it's not "open" then why are they keeping Flash, which is far more proprietary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
You are very much mistaken about the Motorola Xoom... The Xoom will be the first Android tablet to use version 3.0 'Honeycomb', which is why it is so special...
Actually, I did note that the Xoom was the lone exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Some manufacturers (Samsung for example) opted to use the older Android phone OS' on their tablets as they wanted to rush out an iPad competitor, rather than wait on the tablet OS (honeycomb) to be released. That impatience will likely cost them in the long run when customers realize they're missing out on the real android tablet experience... scenarios like that is where Apple has a real advantage as they control both hard and software so no half-assed products can be released to market (unless they choose to release it)...
This is indicative of the herd mentality that dominates consumer electronics. I'm more curious to see if HP (which owns WebOS) and RIM actually come up with an integrated tablet package that shows some innovation, rather than simply copying what Apple introduced last year.
The problem with competing with Apple on the tablet front is that they've already been working on this for many years, and the advantages they've built up in the market with the iPod and iPhone and iTunes have positioned them very well. Consider that Apple was working on the iPad years before the iPhone came out. They decided to shelve the tablet because the technology wasn't ready, but the original touch-based concepts were ready for smartphones, so the iPhone came out first.
The problem for companies making Android tablets is that they will have a very difficult time matching Apple on price. Unlike the Mac, which is premium priced, the iPad is competitively priced; and Apple still makes a lot on each unit, because their volume (the iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad share the same processor and other internal components) allows them to contract huge component quantities. We'll see what happens in March or April when the iPad 2 comes out. If they keep the original iPad in production and drop the price by $100, then it puts even more pressure on competing tablets that have higher production costs.
The smartphone market is where Android will remain very competitive, because the carriers are such huge player. You don't have that big third party driving the tablet market.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
The tight control though has begun cutting both ways. Android might not require you to go through a particular app store and has more customization options available to the end user. But, the gatekeeper for the platform is the carrier, which means that they control whether any uninstallable crapware or GUI overlays get shipped with your phone, and the timing and availability of any Android OS updates.
In the case of the "missing" features on the iPad, that's something that a lot of tech reviewers zoomed in on. But, again they're coming at it from the perspective of spec sheets and checklists. They didn't bother to look at what the iPad got right as a 1.0 product. Some of the "missing" features got added via OS update, and the cameras are likely coming in a couple of months when the iPad 2 comes out.
As far as Flash goes, you're talking to someone who uses Flash blockers on every web browser. Blocking Flash has significantly sped up my web browsing and virtually eliminated the frequent crashes I experienced before (and this is with PC and Mac alike). The sooner we can relegate that POS to the dustbin of history, the better.
Which makes Google's announcement that they will drop support for H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC) in Chrome all the more suspect. They claim that going exclusively to the WebM codec is because it's "open" (note thought that Google owns IP for WebM), but they've effectively forced everybody using Chrome to also use Flash for H.264 video.
Basically, they're trying to move HTML5 towards the inferior WebM codec that has zero hardware support with current devices, and away from a higher performing codec that has 100% industry support and hardware support on hundreds of millions of devices. And if they're removing H.264 because it's not "open" then why are they keeping Flash, which is far more proprietary?
Actually, I did note that the Xoom was the lone exception.
This is indicative of the herd mentality that dominates consumer electronics. I'm more curious to see if HP (which owns WebOS) and RIM actually come up with an integrated tablet package that shows some innovation, rather than simply copying what Apple introduced last year.
The problem with competing with Apple on the tablet front is that they've already been working on this for many years, and the advantages they've built up in the market with the iPod and iPhone and iTunes have positioned them very well. Consider that Apple was working on the iPad years before the iPhone came out. They decided to shelve the tablet because the technology wasn't ready, but the original touch-based concepts were ready for smartphones, so the iPhone came out first.
The problem for companies making Android tablets is that they will have a very difficult time matching Apple on price. Unlike the Mac, which is premium priced, the iPad is competitively priced; and Apple still makes a lot on each unit, because their volume (the iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad share the same processor and other internal components) allows them to contract huge component quantities. We'll see what happens in March or April when the iPad 2 comes out. If they keep the original iPad in production and drop the price by $100, then it puts even more pressure on competing tablets that have higher production costs.
The smartphone market is where Android will remain very competitive, because the carriers are such huge player. You don't have that big third party driving the tablet market.
My bad on the Xoom, I need to get glasses....
As for the tablet wars... I just can't see Apple holding that down, for at least one reason: variety... As good as Apple products are (I certainly enjoyed my MacMini), not everyone is going to want an iPad, much like how not everyone wants an iPhone (one model just isn't enough to appeal to everyone - no matter how good that one model is)... Apple will continue to do very well, but with stronger and stronger competition from Motorola, HTC and even Samsung on the way (and many others), the shear variety will allow Android to overtake them eventually... However, it is possible that Apple will continue to outsell any individual hardware brands running Android... But collectively I expect Android to take the market...
Either way it's good for consumers... We need to have choices available... Something to ensure Apple stays competitive... IMO, the biggest problem Windows faced was the lack of competition; Apple was a premium product, so for the most part they weren't really competition... And Linux was for programmers and software junkies... So Microsoft was allowed to get lazier and lazier... I don't see Apple getting anywhere near as bad as Microsoft, but that doesn't mean they should get the opportunity...
Note: I agree that a lot of tech reviewers focus way too much on spec sheets (which is why some were shocked at how well the iPad sold)... Spec sheets don't matter to most users... in 1994, I used to analyze the specs of any computer I planned to buy... Now I just walk into a store and pick up the cheapest laptop from a brand I know (as I'm sure it will run any basic application I plan to use on it)... However, if you have specific needs then features will matter... Suppose you really want to use a tablet to write shorthand notes or draw, so you need a stylus? Or You need a camera? Or, unlike you, the person views many sites that run flash (though flash is awful)? Then an iPad just won't meet that persons needs... so they'd have to look elsewhere... One device just can't appeal to all users...
-
Never underestimate Apple. Their creativity and persistance remain strong. But Apple did stumble after Jobs was forced out, and until his return, because certain people with corporate mentalities did not fathom Jobs' contribution to Apple's creative drive.
Google may simply wish to gain more control of their market.... for greater pricing power. Think the old ATT. I am glad that Google's motto is "Do no Evil".
-
Never underestimate Apple.
Apple's creativity and persistance remain strong. But Apple did stumble after Jobs was forced out, and until his return, because certain people with corporate mentalities did not fathom Jobs' contribution to Apple's creative drive.
Google may simply wish to gain more control of their market.... for greater pricing power. Think the old ATT. I am glad that Google's motto is "Do no Evil".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
My bad on the Xoom, I need to get glasses....
3D?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
As for the tablet wars... I just can't see Apple holding that down, for at least one reason: variety... As good as Apple products are (I certainly enjoyed my MacMini), not everyone is going to want an iPad, much like how not everyone wants an iPhone (one model just isn't enough to appeal to everyone - no matter how good that one model is)... Apple will continue to do very well, but with stronger and stronger competition from Motorola, HTC and even Samsung on the way (and many others), the shear variety will allow Android to overtake them eventually... However, it is possible that Apple will continue to outsell any individual hardware brands running Android... But collectively I expect Android to take the market...
Either way it's good for consumers... We need to have choices available... Something to ensure Apple stays competitive... IMO, the biggest problem Windows faced was the lack of competition; Apple was a premium product, so for the most part they weren't really competition... And Linux was for programmers and software junkies... So Microsoft was allowed to get lazier and lazier... I don't see Apple getting anywhere near as bad as Microsoft, but that doesn't mean they should get the opportunity...
There are two ways of interpreting how the tablet market will play out -- by looking at how the smartphone market has evolved, and how the MP3 player market has already played out.
With smartphones, you have a situation where Android has begun consolidating the market share formerly shared between Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia, and has now positioned itself to become the overall market leader. Apple actually hasn't been impacted because its growth continues to track with the overall market. The thing about the smartphone market though is that you have the carriers as a third party gatekeeper. In the US, iPhones were only available on AT&T's network, which automatically puts a cap on their upside potential. And the smartphone market does not reflect true market costs and choice because you have carrier subsidies, and vendor lock-in via contracts. With all of these intervening factors in place, the market is situated for Android to take the market share (as its average price per unit plunges) and Apple to take the profits (they already control the majority of the profits in the smartphone market).
With MP3 players, you have no vendor lock-in and no hardware subsidies, so it's more a reflection of true market demand. Even with Microsoft trying to replicate the PC licensing model with PlaysForSure (and subsequently abandoning that approach in favor of trying to recreate the iPod ecosystem with the Zune), Apple took over 2/3 of the media player market and continues to control that market share.
The tablet market shares some similarities with both markets, so I don't think Apple will completely dominate like they do with MP3 players. But, I also don't see Android with the same uptake that they have with smartphones.
You can talk about choice and variety, but Apple has one fundamental advantage over the Android competitors -- component cost. I've not followed every model announced at CES, but my impression of the Android tablets so far is that they can only match or beat the current iPad price points by 1) offering up smaller screens; and/or 2) going to a carrier-subsidized model similar to smartphones that requires long-term data contracts. So far, about 2/3 of iPad sales have been the wi-fi only models. This indicates to me that the carriers (and subsidized contracts) will not have nearly as much influence over the tablet market as they do with smartphones.
With regard to components, as an example I read that Apple has supposedly placed a 20 million unit LCD panel order for the upcoming iPad 2. This display would feature 4X the pixel density of the current iPad screen. This presents problems for other tablet manufacturers because 1) Apple has now cleaned out much of the available supply for those types of LCD panels; and 2) Apple pays cash up front, which gives them even more favorable pricing. Supposedly, the primary reason that most of the new Android tablets have come out in the 7" screen size is because Apple's volume purchasing made 10" touchscreens short supplied and prohibitively expensive for everybody else. If Apple moves to higher resolution panels, you will see more 10" Android tablets, but those will only match last year's iPad screen resolution.
The choice and variety argument was also used with MP3 players. But, the iPod still prevailed for a multitude of reasons, many of which still apply with the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajani
Note: I agree that a lot of tech reviewers focus way too much on spec sheets (which is why some were shocked at how well the iPad sold)... Spec sheets don't matter to most users... in 1994, I used to analyze the specs of any computer I planned to buy... Now I just walk into a store and pick up the cheapest laptop from a brand I know (as I'm sure it will run any basic application I plan to use on it)... However, if you have specific needs then features will matter... Suppose you really want to use a tablet to write shorthand notes or draw, so you need a stylus? Or You need a camera? Or, unlike you, the person views many sites that run flash (though flash is awful)? Then an iPad just won't meet that persons needs... so they'd have to look elsewhere... One device just can't appeal to all users...
We'll see how this all plays out once Android 3.0 (and WebOS 2.0 and RIM's PlayBook) comes out. I think the spate of Android 2.2 tablets announced at CES will fade once the iPad 2 debuts (no different than how most of the Windows 7 slates displayed at CES a year ago never made it to market). They're too close in price to the iPad, and 2.2 lacks the polish needed for larger screens.
Once they get situated I think competing tablets will do better against the iPad than competing MP3 players did against the iPod. But, I doubt they will gain as much traction as Android smartphones have.
|