Apple must license iOS to 2ed party developers.

[Piggie]

iPad is made from milled and polished Aluminum and a fine polished glass surface. That is 3 to 5 times what a damage proof plastic enclosure costs.

I'm sure the iPad1 was simply, quickly and cheaply just stamped out of a sheet of metal, not machined out like the Macs are.
You cal tell that by the teardowns that show internal fixing points stuck onto the surface of the metal inside.
Also you'd never have a curved back as the iPad1 and machine it out. I'm sure it's just cheaply stamped.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Just it needs to be realised.

Looking at the iPad2 teardown, the current iPad2 model does look machined out.

 

[PracticalMac]

SINCE others want replies, I will put mine in green!

• Rugged, water proof devices - Done with case enclosure Would you put yours in a plastic bag and go diving with it? Or hows about a disaster zone with hard pointy objects everywhere trying to compile a list of survivors during a heavy rainstorm. Oh, and one of those cases specifically said it did not warranty the iPad from damage, "use at your own risk!!"
• Embedded systems, such as hospital or industrial monitoring equipment - Done already being used in hospitals, homes and health industry Carrying an iPad into a patients room does not make it true. I am talking a display mounted in each room that is not just an information point, watch TV or read books, but also gives information on their vitals, when next meal, camera so nurse and see them at their station, and more. True integration.
• Car information/entertainment (Microsoft is doing it with Ford) - Done. iDevices can plug into OBDII ports, are GPS devices, can play movies for the kids. What more do you want? You miss this boat so far. OBD is just car status, what Ford and MS are doing is complete integration on all aspects, voice control, cell calls, music, etc, A FULLY INTEGRATED package. What you propose is red necking the same setup, cross fingers, and hope it works out. OH, and have fun which kid will get to use iPad (instead of independent screen for each kid in back mounted on back of each headrests)
• Military specialized devices. - Done big time. Navy, Marines and Army using iPhones and iPads for various specialized purposes in aviation and infantry. Total FAIL in answer, my comment again: Military specialized devices.. I am talking about rugged iPad or iOS devices in, say front line units so they can see up to second maps and intel, refer to operation or emergency information, really hard stuff. So far iPad in military is using off shelf or modified commercial aviation map programs, or as training tools, both in fairly well controlled environments from harsh conditions.
• Low cost minimal/stripped version for poor/developing country education. - You do realize Apple has been giving away and giving huge discounts on computers since the 80's for educational purposes, plus every year they have the student discount deal. But for the poorest of countries; remember the $100 cheapo laptop that was going to be Windows based and go to every kid in the dirt poor areas of the world. Yeah, that didn't work out, yet you think Apple can make a computer or iLaptop that will meet their hgih specs and still sell for $100 or less. Not gonna happen. We all know Apple's subjugation of college and high school students ( ), but those are for EDUCATED "poor" people. Their is a world of difference between a poor college student and a poor 10 year old in Botswana, why you even came to that conclusion is well, I will be nice and leave it at that. As to that $100 PC (joke) of a computer, I do agree with you. I was following it when the idea was proposed and the resulting product was just simply a waste of everything. Great idea, stupid execution.
  I read somewhere an iPad costs I *think* about $129 in parts to make (somewhere in MacRumors, cannot find, someone help?). If that is true then by using a cheaper but stronger plastic case and eliminate some items (see previous post) and donate the labor, hey, a $100 computer is very possible! Realizticly speaking it will likely be more, but it will be far more usable then that poorly executed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child.
• other..?

Mac.World made an effort, but it was easy to blow a hole in each of his comments, especially without specific examples.

A low cost One_Laptop_per_Child version of iPad will instantly take off. I challenge anyone to discount it, with details please.

Apple's business goal is not to conquer EVERY category of devices.

Apple does not need to conquer the whole world. Just like they won't make canned food for dogs.

Can't you have a better example? "Food for dogs"??

Let me help: Boeing does not serve every flight need focusing on large commercial and military. However biz-jet companies like Gulfstream, Cessna, and Hawker Beechcraft make combined billions, which is more then pocket change.

IOW, it could be very profitable for Apple.

I'm sure the iPad1 was simply, quickly and cheaply just stamped out of a sheet of metal, not machined out like the Macs are.
You cal tell that by the teardowns that show internal fixing points stuck onto the surface of the metal inside.
Also you'd never have a curved back as the iPad1 and machine it out. I'm sure it's just cheaply stamped.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Just it needs to be realised.

Looking at the iPad2 teardown, the current iPad2 model does look machined out.

Show me the picture, but I still highly doubt it, their are limitations to the process, and reject rates for unpainted stamped metal is high.

 

[radiogoober]

Can't you have a better example? "Food for dogs"??

Let me help: Boeing does not serve every flight need focusing on large commercial and military. However biz-jet companies like Gulfstream, Cessna, and Hawker Beechcraft make combined billions, which is more then pocket change.

IOW, it could be very profitable for Apple.



Show me the picture, but I still highly doubt it, their are limitations to the process, and reject rates for unpainted stamped metal is high.

There isn't a chance in hell Apple will license iOS to other developers.

 

[Carouser]

I'm sure the iPad1 was simply, quickly and cheaply just stamped out of a sheet of metal, not machined out like the Macs are.
You cal tell that by the teardowns that show internal fixing points stuck onto the surface of the metal inside.
Also you'd never have a curved back as the iPad1 and machine it out. I'm sure it's just cheaply stamped.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Just it needs to be realised.

Was it stamped or forged? Was there machining after this stamping? To which sides?

You should use the term 'inexpensive' because 'cheaply just stamped' implies that the process is sub-par quality or something.

 

[NT1440]

30 pin connector does not make a product great,
Its just something on a great product.

Been using Apple (later PC DOS) since 1981.
I am no expert but am no spring rooster.

Then I'd think you'd understand that half the crap you are asking for can already be accomplished by making a case that also taps into the 30 pin connector.

Using a computer for a long time doesn't mean you understand anything about what can be developed for it. Have you looked at any of apple's documentation? Almost everything you've said other than hardware mods can be done already, and have been able to for years.

 

[jfyrfytr25]

OP. you have all these uses for a tablet that require special hardware. Too bad there is not an opensourced OS that can be used on specialized hardware. Oh wait, there is ANDROID.

Just like apple never entered the niche rugged PC line (they left that to other mfgs that liscensed windows) they will never try to enter those markets with the tablet.

It is cost/benefit. the small benefit they might gain by entering this area is not enough to warrant the time, energy, resources, and production lines.

I see your point that a tablet would be much easier in some of these scenarios, but large corporations are not in the business of getting into every vertical because they can. the numbers must make sense.

You likened the Boeing company a few posts back and the fact that they only focus on large carriers. But the other small companies pick up that slack.

Think of Apple as Boeing, and Android as the gulfstreams of the world.

 

[poloponies]

I read somewhere an iPad costs I *think* about $129 in parts to make (somewhere in MacRumors, cannot find, someone help?).

Materials costs for the iPad are estimated at about $250. That doesn't include R&D, manufacturing, shipping/distribution, marketing, returns/repairs. The idea of giving away low-cost devices to kids in the third world is a noble one, but costly. Didn't work all that well for One Laptop Per Child.

 

[NT1440]

I'm sure the iPad1 was simply, quickly and cheaply just stamped out of a sheet of metal, not machined out like the Macs are.

Could you at least do a google search before just talking hot air?:roll eyes:

Ipad 1:

Looks really stamped out.

 

[PracticalMac]

There isn't a chance in hell Apple will license iOS to other developers.

(Sigh) That is why I said SECOND party developers. Apple has full control while the designer contributes their expertise and some of risk.

Then I'd think you'd understand that half the crap you are asking for can already be accomplished by making a case that also taps into the 30 pin connector.

Using a computer for a long time doesn't mean you understand anything about what can be developed for it. Have you looked at any of apple's documentation? Almost everything you've said other than hardware mods can be done already, and have been able to for years.

Then I am not following what you are saying. Umm, I think it is about software, but not sure. Please elaborate.

OP. you have all these uses for a tablet that require special hardware. Too bad there is not an opensourced OS that can be used on specialized hardware. Oh wait, there is ANDROID.

Just like apple never entered the niche rugged PC line (they left that to other mfgs that liscensed windows) they will never try to enter those markets with the tablet.

It is cost/benefit. the small benefit they might gain by entering this area is not enough to warrant the time, energy, resources, and production lines.

I see your point that a tablet would be much easier in some of these scenarios, but large corporations are not in the business of getting into every vertical because they can. the numbers must make sense.

You likened the Boeing company a few posts back and the fact that they only focus on large carriers. But the other small companies pick up that slack.

Think of Apple as Boeing, and Android as the gulfstreams of the world.

Again note the reference to SECOND party. Apple avoids large investment into a specialized design, yet will support a smaller but still profitable specialized market.

Other companies, including aircraft, had successful forays into smaller markets, most times selling off that division instead of closing it.

Materials costs for the iPad are estimated at about $250. That doesn't include R&D, manufacturing, shipping/distribution, marketing, returns/repairs. The idea of giving away low-cost devices to kids in the third world is a noble one, but costly. Didn't work all that well for One Laptop Per Child.

Thanks. I recall reading about the cost as part of Apple looking for another company to make parts.

Could you at least do a google search before just talking hot air?:roll eyes:

Ipad 1:

Image

Looks really stamped out.

Thanks, and nice link!

 

[NebulaClash]

Funny how there are so many people willing to give their advice to Apple because they know more than Apple does. Good thing these threads exist or else Apple might go down the drain for lack of inspiration.

Look, it's very simple, but so simple a lot of people here do not get it: Apple is aiming at the biggest chunk of the market and ignoring the edges of speciality. That's why they mostly ignore the geek market (who geek out to every new Android device released because that one is finally the one they want), and they ignore the specialized ruggedized military and civilian defense markets. They know that geeks, and military personnel, will create the appropriate adapters or cases as required and just buy Apple gear anyway, as they are doing with iPhones in the military. If not, it will go to some other specialist manufacturer. And Apple WILL NOT CARE. It's too specialized and small a market. Right now they can barely keep up with demand as they cater to the vast middle market while leaving the tiny specialized markets alone.

They are the most successful technology company on the planet. But hey, keep giving them advice. I'm sure they would be lost without you.

 

[Carouser]

I don't even know what the argument is.

Divers who need underwater touch computing are so niche that it is a waste of Apple's time and a developer's time to shoehorn a modified/restricted version of iOS into another device (another case?).

Poor people in 3rd world countries need political and social change; making the iPad $100 cheaper won't do anything.

Good luck competing with health care tech. Either you are a dedicated company already established in this area, or an iPad is already suitable for the demands of the situation. It's a waste of time and money to try to split the difference.

But these are all distinct examples with no clear idea what is connecting them. Could the OP restate what the argument is, what is specifically being licensed, what second party developers will have access to change and what Apple will have to oversee and sign off on?

I think the point is Apple can just throw out the idea of comparative advantage because somebody wants to imagine a cool iPad with a chunky rubber case on it. Surely this isn't true.

 

[jfyrfytr25]

(Sigh) That is why I said SECOND party developers. Apple has full control while the designer contributes their expertise and some of risk.



Then I am not following what you are saying. Umm, I think it is about software, but not sure. Please elaborate.



Again note the reference to SECOND party. Apple avoids large investment into a specialized design, yet will support a smaller but still profitable specialized market.

Other companies, including aircraft, had successful forays into smaller markets, most times selling off that division instead of closing it.



Thanks. I recall reading about the cost as part of Apple looking for another company to make parts.



Thanks, and nice link!

as others have said over and over. Apple will never liscense their iOS to 3rd party MFG's. they are in the business of making software and hardware exclusive to each other. that is how they sell their products. Many people are not as enamored with the hardware side of Apple but love the simplicity of the OS. Apple has made it so that if you want their OS experience you have to buy their hardware to do it. They are interested in selling an experience, not a tablet or an OS. the only way to get experience they want to deliver is to bundle the software with the hardware it was designed for. to liscense it would diminish that eliteist experience they have created over the years.

as for being out done, it will not happen. As long as apple is turning out products like they have millions will line up to buy them and that my friend is why they dont have to worry about these trivial markets you are talking about.

also, seems like you have spent an awfully long time in here trying to fortify this notion you have that apple will fail unless they liscense. Do you think that Steve Jobs will see your thread and change apples business strategy? this topic has really played itself out....

 

[poloponies]

Apple doesn't have to control everything in every market. There's a cachet to being considered the "underdog" and a premium player. Once you become ubiquitous it loses a lot of the appeal and then you become the evil empire. Apple knows what it's doing. It has the occasional misstep but, for the most part, its record speaks for itself.

 

[PracticalMac]

The advantage about debating subjects here is the best way to refine the argument being made.

To the questions.

Look, it's very simple, but so simple a lot of people here do not get it: Apple is aiming at the biggest chunk of the market and ignoring the edges of speciality. That's why they mostly ignore the geek market (who geek out to every new Android device released because that one is finally the one they want), and they ignore the specialized ruggedized military and civilian defense markets. They know that geeks, and military personnel, will create the appropriate adapters or cases as required and just buy Apple gear anyway, as they are doing with iPhones in the military. If not, it will go to some other specialist manufacturer. And Apple WILL NOT CARE. It's too specialized and small a market. Right now they can barely keep up with demand as they cater to the vast middle market while leaving the tiny specialized markets alone.

They are the most successful technology company on the planet. But hey, keep giving them advice. I'm sure they would be lost without you.

Diving with an iPad is an example of how a rugged iPad could be used, but not the only way it can be used. More about this below...

I don't even know what the argument is.

Divers who need underwater touch computing are so niche that it is a waste of Apple's time and a developer's time to shoehorn a modified/restricted version of iOS into another device (another case?).

Poor people in 3rd world countries need political and social change; making the iPad $100 cheaper won't do anything.

Good luck competing with health care tech. Either you are a dedicated company already established in this area, or an iPad is already suitable for the demands of the situation. It's a waste of time and money to try to split the difference.

But these are all distinct examples with no clear idea what is connecting them. Could the OP restate what the argument is, what is specifically being licensed, what second party developers will have access to change and what Apple will have to oversee and sign off on?

I think the point is Apple can just throw out the idea of comparative advantage because somebody wants to imagine a cool iPad with a chunky rubber case on it. Surely this isn't true.

Again, diving is an example of extreme environment!

For poor countries to develop political and social change, it needs EDUCATION!
"Give a man a fish, feed them for the day. Teach them to fish, they will never go hungry. Better yet, give them a book on fishing, hunting, farming, and cocking, and they can open up a restaurant and make money as well as eat!" iPad the the best device to teach all that!

Health care is only getting bigger, and the aging population is getting bigger, much bigger. An iOS based monitoring system may be worth billions in revenue, but absolute in the millions.

Second party explanation at end.

as others have said over and over. Apple will never liscense their iOS to 3rd party MFG's. they are in the business of making software and hardware exclusive to each other. that is how they sell their products. Many people are not as enamored with the hardware side of Apple but love the simplicity of the OS. Apple has made it so that if you want their OS experience you have to buy their hardware to do it. They are interested in selling an experience, not a tablet or an OS. the only way to get experience they want to deliver is to bundle the software with the hardware it was designed for. to liscense it would diminish that eliteist experience they have created over the years.

as for being out done, it will not happen. As long as apple is turning out products like they have millions will line up to buy them and that my friend is why they dont have to worry about these trivial markets you are talking about.

also, seems like you have spent an awfully long time in here trying to fortify this notion you have that apple will fail unless they liscense. Do you think that Steve Jobs will see your thread and change apples business strategy? this topic has really played itself out....

Never say never. History is replete with titans in an industry suddenly collapse. Look at Nokia. 5 years ago no one would have believed they would go from #1 to falling off the charts by a company that never built a cell phone before!

Go to bottom to counter the rest of your point.

Apple doesn't have to control everything in every market. There's a cachet to being considered the "underdog" and a premium player. Once you become ubiquitous it loses a lot of the appeal and then you become the evil empire. Apple knows what it's doing. It has the occasional misstep but, for the most part, its record speaks for itself.

OK, to the BIG picture, using an single example:

A Rugged iPad:
*Water proof to 3ft /1m under water
*Withstand impact from a 7~10 ft drop on concrete.
*Temperature -40f to +140f (just an example, ok?)

Second party plan:
The contractor will use the same guts (motherboard, batteries) as iPad 2, have some decision on others like camera, memory.
Apple will set the price, set the user experience, have final say in the look/feel

Basically Apple hires the expertise of another company to make a rugged version of iPad that is still their all theirs, so no erosion of name.

Market:
*Outdoors adventurers (hiking, fishing, yachting, campers, off roaders, etc)
*First responders and emergency services (firemen, ambulance, red cross (BTW, see that commercial suggesting just this use for android tablets??)
*Military
*Infrastructure inspectors (pipeline, power lines, gas lines, etc)
*those who think it looks too cool.


I can see a few million potential customers. YES, I understand not everyone get a rugged iPad, but at least I can see a few 100,000's to a couple of million sold.

I would rather see an Rugged iPad over Android devices.

 

[balamw]

The Modbook model would possibly work.

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

Buy stock iPad, replace case or other component to achieve your desired enhancement.

EDIT: In case you haven't noticed, Apple doesn't particularly like "custom" or the distractions that come from too many variations of a product.

EDIT 2: Another example: http://www.tuaw.com/2007/07/04/iresq-will-remove-your-iphones-camera/

B

 

[Carouser]

Again, diving is an example of extreme environment!

That doesn't mean that making an iPad for this environment is necessary or the best solution.

For poor countries to develop political and social change, it needs EDUCATION!
Better yet, give them a book on fishing, hunting, farming, and cocking, and they can open up a restaurant and make money as well as eat!" iPad the the best device to teach all that!

This is total nonsense on two counts:
1) education as the motive force for social and political change is so simplistic as to be useless. The recent and ongoing demonstrations in the world aren't because people went to school all of a sudden. Education isn't going to lift trade restrictions which keep poor farmers from selling their goods. Education infrastructure also requires social and political change, unless your plan is to airdrop thousands of iPads into one of them poor countries you see on the tee-vee.
2) the iPad isn't the best device to raise education levels, better to pay a teacher's salary for the next hundred years, seriously come on

Health care is only getting bigger, and the aging population is getting bigger, much bigger. An iOS based monitoring system may be worth billions in revenue, but absolute in the millions.

The fact that there's money to be had in health care doesn't mean that your licensing suggestion is the best way to make that money.

As for the 'rugged iPad' example, it's basically an iPad thrown in an OtterBox. Woop-de-doo. And you aren't even in these industries, yet you think you know what they need!

SO:
The plan here is for Apple to let other companies take the case off the iPad and make their own. This somehow has something to do with hospital monitoring systems (the OP clearly knows a lot about this industry) and poor kids in Africa, to the tune of millionz. If they don't do this, Android is going to own this market, and Apple should care, for some reason.

 

[vrDrew]

Someone would take their iPad scuba diving? Seriously?

OK: I guess that, in this whole wide world of several billion people, there might be a handful of individuals, who might conceivably come up with a good reason to take a multi-touch computer underwater. But not many, and certainly not enough to justify the expense necessary to engineer such a thing.

Would it even work? Or would saltwater screw up the electrical conductance between a fingertip and the screen? And speaking of which, does an iPad even work if you are wearing surgical gloves?

And thats just it: There are probably millions of "good ideas" that, while technically feasible, simply are never going to garner enough interest (ie. people willing to pay for them) to make them worth doing.

Thats why we have businesspeople, and venture capitalists, and loan officers. They sit down, look at an idea, and decide if a) the idea is practical, b) how much its going to cost to do it; c) how many people will buy it if its made; and d) whether they are willing to risk their money and/or job on their decision.

 

[reputationZed]

We all know Apple's subjugation of college and high school students ( ), but those are for EDUCATED "poor" people. Their is a world of difference between a poor college student and a poor 10 year old in Botswana,

There is a world of difference... or Their's, is a world of difference? I guess the grammar is not a required course at Botswana State (Go Zebras!!!)

SO:
The plan here is for Apple to let other companies take the case off the iPad and make their own. This somehow has something to do with hospital monitoring systems (the OP clearly knows a lot about this industry) and poor kids in Africa, to the tune of millionz. If they don't do this, Android is going to own this market, and Apple should care, for some reason.

Not sure if Carouser was being sarcastic, in which case I agree with his argument, or if he supports this plan, in which case I do not.

I see two problems with the plan

First Apple is not both a hardware and a software company, they are a hardware company that uses software to add a unique value to their hardware. With the prices Apple is charging on software lately, when their not just giving it away, they are probably barely covering their development costs. Licensing iOS doesn't help Apple sell more hardware so it doesn't play into their value stream. Creating a value stream around licensing iOS would mean that a significant portion of the cost for a non Apple iOS device would go towards licensing the OS, which would quite likely make them prohibitively expensive.

Second, despite being in a walled garden iOS is not a hardened mission critical OS. An iOS device may be useful in a hospital as a reference tool, ie viewing MRI's or as a scheduling device, but I cant see it being used as a hospital monitoring system. To the best of my knowledge life support software is robust at the expense of being fairly singular in purpose (ie, no playing Angry Birds on the patients heart rate monitor)

Third, I know I said two points, so this ones a freebee.

they don't do this, Android is going to own this market, and Apple should care, for some reason.

So what? How does it hurt Apple if Android dominates markets it has no interest in? Apple has never really made a concerted effort to wrest the enterprise market away from Windows because they can ignore that market and still be highly profitable.

 

[Carouser]

Not sure if Carouser was being sarcastic, in which case I agree with his argument

Yes. The whole idea as presented by the OP is ill-formed.

How does it hurt Apple if Android dominates markets it has no interest in? Apple has never really made a concerted effort to wrest the enterprise market away from Windows because they can ignore that market and still be highly profitable.

Exactly.

 

[PracticalMac]

I see two problems with the plan

First Apple is not both a hardware and a software company, they are a hardware company that uses software to add a unique value to their hardware. With the prices Apple is charging on software lately, when their not just giving it away, they are probably barely covering their development costs. Licensing iOS doesn't help Apple sell more hardware so it doesn't play into their value stream. Creating a value stream around licensing iOS would mean that a significant portion of the cost for a non Apple iOS device would go towards licensing the OS, which would quite likely make them prohibitively expensive.

Second, despite being in a walled garden iOS is not a hardened mission critical OS. An iOS device may be useful in a hospital as a reference tool, ie viewing MRI's or as a scheduling device, but I cant see it being used as a hospital monitoring system. To the best of my knowledge life support software is robust at the expense of being fairly singular in purpose (ie, no playing Angry Birds on the patients heart rate monitor)

Third, I know I said two points, so this ones a freebee.
So what? How does it hurt Apple if Android dominates markets it has no interest in? Apple has never really made a concerted effort to wrest the enterprise market away from Windows because they can ignore that market and still be highly profitable.

Point 1:
Again, the Apple has full control, they still control the hardware, software, and user experience.
The core hardware and software are bundled together the same as any iPad.
Your first argument is moot in what I am proposing.

Point 2:
The design of OS software today like OS X is a kernel that is protected and will operate no matter what the top layer application software does. iOS is an extremely controlled environment, and by removing apps like "App Store" the ability to add potential troublesome software to iOS is almost eliminated.
So, YES, an iOS device can be just as safe as the specialized systems in hospitals.

Point 3:
Very simple answer and proof it is a huge and powerful factor.
From the 1980's to early 90's companies where buying DOS and Window PC's, employees learned to use those, knew the software, had access to copies of that software. When they purchased their first computer, they naturally purchased a PC.
People inherently, like anything else, choose the path of least resistance.
If people use Android stuff at work, they know Android, and will be much more inclined to get an Android device.
The more Android is used in areas not covered by iOS, the more iOS looses ground. It is like termites, eating into the house Apple built.


On the Education front:
YES, you can never avoid a real human teaching children, but the effectiveness of the teacher is only as good as the tools she/he has.
A teacher with a handful of iPads will be dozens of times more effective, that will help the new generation realize what they can do better in society and politics.
Libraries are rare in developing countries, few can read, but everyone can see, hear, and understand someone speaking. An iPad that shows videos, reads books, and interactively teaches how to read (under the guidance of a teacher, of course), has access to the world, and can be done anywhere. The iPad is the Library.


Some of you doubt my abilities, dismiss me as pulling ideas out of my arse. So let me fill in.

I have lived for 3.5 years in a country where literacy is less then 50%, superstition and gossip is considered truth, and woman are worth less the goats. The government is corrupt, elitist, massive hypocrisy, and any adjective you can think of.

I have a BS in computer engineering and minor in mechanics.

Now if I only had better marketing ability to convey concepts, possibilities, and versatility. (Scuba diving was a really bad example, it was only meant as an example of resistance to salt water penetration a few feet under.)

 

[Carouser]

From the 1980's to early 90's companies where buying DOS and Window PC's, employees learned to use those, knew the software, had access to copies of that software. When they purchased their first computer, they naturally purchased a PC.
People inherently, like anything else, choose the path of least resistance.
If people use Android stuff at work, they know Android, and will be much more inclined to get an Android device.
The more Android is used in areas not covered by iOS, the more iOS looses ground. It is like termites, eating into the house Apple built.

1) People have been using Microsoft Office forever yet still buy Apple products, so your theory doesn't explain this.

2) If Apple doesn't make a 'licensed iPad' that doesn't mean that Android will necessarily move into that territory.
- for many purposes, iOS, Mac, MS, Android are already entrenched and work fine
- for niche purposes, there are already niche companies making hardware and software for specific tasks, who can do so more efficiently than going through Apple
- the remainder is so small that it is not worth it for Apple to pursue this, and will lose nothing to competitors because they are not competing in this space at all, any more than they are losing to Northrop Grumman's electronics division.

On the Education front:
YES, you can never avoid a real human teaching children, but the effectiveness of the teacher is only as good as the tools she/he has.
A teacher with a handful of iPads will be dozens of times more effective, that will help the new generation realize what they can do better in society and politics.
Libraries are rare in developing countries, few can read, but everyone can see, hear, and understand someone speaking. An iPad that shows videos, reads books, and interactively teaches how to read (under the guidance of a teacher, of course), has access to the world, and can be done anywhere. The iPad is the Library.

And when the iPads break? Books are far more durable, and you haven't shown any evidence that reading on a screen is better for literacy than reading off a page. If people need iPads for education they can be subsidized and used as-is. If some variant is warranted, this is completely separate from the idea of licensing iOS to another party; Apple could just have a small division doing this.

 

[radiogoober]

For poor countries to develop political and social change, it needs EDUCATION!
"Give a man a fish, feed them for the day. Teach them to fish, they will never go hungry. Better yet, give them a book on fishing, hunting, farming, and cocking, and they can open up a restaurant and make money as well as eat!" iPad the the best device to teach all that!

Man, you are completely out of touch with the world if you think that sending iPads to a 3rd world country is going to provide them with education. The first thing that would happen is the local rebel gangs would kill everyone for their iPads, and then trade the iPads for guns. (they may initially trade the iPads for cash, drugs, diamonds, etc, but ultimately they will get guns.) They will then use their bigger armory to kill more innocent people.

Again, 3rd world countries don't need iPads. It's so insanely naive to say that. Wow.

 

[poloponies]

Okay, you're enthusiastic about your position. We do get it. Apple is a huge multinational corporation employing tens of thousands of individuals, many with superior skills and a comprehensive understanding of business development. They're doing what they're doing for a reason. They aren't interested in world domination or in cornering every niche market and certainly not unprofitable niches.

 

[porcupine8]

It doesn't matter how many arguments you can make as to why Apple should do these things, or could conceivably do them, or how it would be totally great if they did them - the fact remains that Apple simply won't do them.

And they won't die, and the iPad won't fail.

 

[AceCoolie]

Actually, the third party/embedded market is rather large dollar wise. When I worked for AMD/ATI, I developed video drivers for embedded products that ranged from airplane cockpit displays to casino games to voting booths to medical equipment. Many of these products ran Windows CE or a lightweight build of linux.

While the overall market segment is smaller than retail, the gross margins are thru the roof! We'd take a high end Radeon card that sold for $500 retail and tweak the driver a bit and sell it for $15000 for an MRI machine. While Apple may not be actively courting this market, it's not because it's insignificant.