iPads - SOLD OUT!!!!
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: test of Xface
Next: iPad - no HDMI out???!!!
From: Alan Baker on 31 Mar 2010 14:53 In article <hovm66$gkn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, White Spirit <wspirit(a)homechoice.co.uk> wrote: > On 31/03/2010 15:19, Ezekiel wrote: > > >> I suppose I just find it difficult to believe that so many people are > >> willing to pay for overpriced hardware that can't do a tenth of what a > >> netbook can do. > > > Can't do 1/10th? Care to list all of these things that typical users > > want to do with a netbook that can't be done with an iPad? (Hint - > > compiling drivers and editing gigabytes of video isn't something that is > > commonly done on a netbook.) > > No flash. Correct. But people don't want to "do" flash. They want to watch video. Time will tell whether Apple's choice to leave out flash was correct, but given that youtube is already supporting video without it... > No multitasking. Incorrect. > No USB. Incorrect. > > Given the implications of the above, make it a hundredth. > > >> Apple must be doing something right. > > > They're making a device/gadget that approaches the problem from the > > user's perspective. The traditional approach is "people want a computer" > > and they view this as "people want to check email... people want to > > share photos... etc." Many people don't want or need a computer - they > > just want to perform certain tasks. > > Archos did it first and much better. LOLOLLLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLL -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Fa-groon on 31 Mar 2010 15:15 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:22:07 -0700, Ezekiel wrote (in article <hp03sh$blu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>): > > > "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote in message > news:lloydparsons-8C324B.13121131032010(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> In article <G4WdnUmABrbU9y7WnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d(a)supernews.com>, >> Rick <none(a)mail.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:00:07 -0400, nospam wrote: >>> >>>> In article <hovng1$jun$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, White Spirit >>>> <wspirit(a)homechoice.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think they'll find it objectionable that they can't read an e-mail >>>>> while they're waiting for a web-page to load or have something >>>>> download >>>>> in the background. >>>> >>>> it hasn't bothered anyone on the iphone or ipod touch so why would it >>>> on >>>> the ipad? >>> >>> iPhone OS: We Don�?Tt Need No Multitasking�?� But We Need Something >>> <http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/ >>> iphone_we_dont_need_no_multitasking..._but_we_need_something/> >>> >>> New Apple iPhone 4G: No Flash, No Multitasking, Would You Buy it? >>> <http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/03/14/new-apple-iphone-4g-no-flash- >>> no-multitasking-would-you-buy-it/> >>> No (60%, 349 Votes) >>> Yes (40%, 234 Votes) >>> >>> iPhone Multitasking, Where You At? >>> <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343380,00.asp> >>> >>> "Apple's lack of multitasking capabilities is no big deal. Well, except >>> that it is." >>> >>> So ... "it hasn't bothered anyone on the iphone"... riiiiight... >> >> Yes, you are right. So many actual people care about all of that, that >> the sales of the iPhone and iPods have been dismal. Why would Apple do >> such a thing! :) >> >> The articles are nice and the pundits as usual are talking about what >> they think is missing and very important. Meanwhile the consumers are >> just buying them up as fast as Apple can make them. > > I own a iPod touch and pre-ordered the iPad so I'm not a Mac/OSX user. But > this is how I view Apple vs. the competition. > > Most companies focus on making products with lots of features and specs that > look great on paper. This makes the techies happy and puts lots of > check-marks on the marketing feature list. Whereas Apple tends to focus on > making products that actual people like to use. Well said. I agree.
From: Hadron on 31 Mar 2010 15:15 Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> writes: > In article <hovm66$gkn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > White Spirit <wspirit(a)homechoice.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 31/03/2010 15:19, Ezekiel wrote: >> >> >> I suppose I just find it difficult to believe that so many people are >> >> willing to pay for overpriced hardware that can't do a tenth of what a >> >> netbook can do. >> >> > Can't do 1/10th? Care to list all of these things that typical users >> > want to do with a netbook that can't be done with an iPad? (Hint - >> > compiling drivers and editing gigabytes of video isn't something that is >> > commonly done on a netbook.) >> >> No flash. > > Correct. But people don't want to "do" flash. They want to watch video. > Time will tell whether Apple's choice to leave out flash was correct, > but given that youtube is already supporting video without it... > >> No multitasking. > > Incorrect. > >> No USB. > > Incorrect. This review sums up Mr Spirit : either doesnt know what multi tasking means or he is muddying the waters to put people off Apple products. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/18/inside_apples_ipad_multitasking.html This one straightens out the lies told by Moccasin Joe and the other Apple haters http://smokingapples.com/opinion/multi-tasking-iphone-ipad/ Surely they could have googled themselves and saved themselves a lot of embarrassment?
From: Mocassin joe on 31 Mar 2010 17:28 "-hh" <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in message news:8e122eac-0174-4c06-8f24-c006fc0adc97(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > White Spirit <wspi...(a)homechoice.co.uk> wrote: >> On 31/03/2010 15:33, Ezekiel wrote: >> >> >> Archos did it first and much better. >> > Better how? >> >> They used a full OS (with Flash and multitasking), a better screen, >> better battery life and for less money. > > Good for them. > > Now how many units have they sold, and how much profit did this bring > in for Archos's stockholders? Move out of the past, and a few months into the future. How many good tablets that are better than the iPad will there be to pick from?
From: -hh on 31 Mar 2010 18:03
"Mocassin joe" <joemocasa...(a)aol.com> wrote: > "-hh" <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in message > > White Spirit <wspi...(a)homechoice.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 31/03/2010 15:33, Ezekiel wrote: > > >> >> Archos did it first and much better. > >> > Better how? > > >> They used a full OS (with Flash and multitasking), a better screen, > >> better battery life and for less money. > > > Good for them. > > > Now how many units have they sold, and how much profit did this bring > > in for Archos's stockholders? > > Move out of the past, and a few months into the future. Are you saying that we now ignore the past because Archos apparently didn't make a profit afterall? > How many good > tablets that are better than the iPad will there be to pick from? Zero, because you've allowed me pick the definitions of "good" and "better". :-P AFAIC, the real question to be asked is - how much *profit* will the tablet segment make in the industry in 2010, and who gets what sized share(s) of it? The reason for phrasing the question this way is because the current tablet market has been in the doldrums and not particularly profitable for anyone. The only way that profit is going to significantly increase today is (not by continuting to do the same old thing, but) by a breakthrough in the the "product formula" which makes it far more compelling to consumers (thus, increased sales). *Whoever* this winner is, then good for them. There's no law that says it has to be Apple...they're just the odd-on favorite for today's bet. -hh |