Yes I'll be twiddling my thumbs with only 150,000 apps, my entire music and video collection, and everything available on the different "stores". Yeah, not much content at launch.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reportedly Tempering Expectations as iPad Content Deals Remain Unfinalized
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes I'll be twiddling my thumbs with only 150,000 apps, my entire music and video collection, and everything available on the different "stores". Yeah, not much content at launch.
It's clear the device has the "WOW" factor. I'm certainly interested.
But content is key to success and iPhone apps, even though there are tons,
WON'T make buyers happy for this type of device because it won't be used by people in the same way an iPod Touch or iPhone is.
Expectations will be much higher for it to do more and as far as we know now, it really does NOT.
It's clear Steve Jobs is waging a personal war against Adobe FLASH, and I'm no big fan of FLASH either, but not having it, in my opinion cripples this device unless content providers get on board the Steve Jobs' Anti-Flash crusade. And that's costly. In a bad economy, I'm not surprised many are reluctant. I'm sure they'd like to, but most companies are doing cost cutting, so I'm skeptical Steve Jobs patented "Reality Distortion Field" will work this time around.
Ultimately, if this kind of problem continues, the hype on this device will far out-weigh its usefulness and customers will be disappointed.
Anyone remember NEWTON?
The vast majority of iPhone apps will look stupid & bad on the iPad.
That's another thing people don't realize, the $500 Kid's Toy Factor.
This device MUST do more than an iPhone to ultimately be successful and it doesn't appear to and this article pretty much confirms all my concerns and the reasons why I'm not buying one before Revision B or C.
Although I'll admit, it might sell well initially, at least to customers who are completely stupid about its capabilities and caught up in the hype or those who don't already have an iPhone or iPod Touch or need an e-book reader.
But that's a niche market in general, not to mention with so many iPods and iPhones already sold.
I guess the million dollar question is, exactly how many people really want a bigger iPhone or iPod Touch in addition to the one they already have?
Maybe they do, I dunno. I'm waiting though.
The iPad doesn't replace anything I don't already own in any way shape or form.
Which I can already get on, and are optimised for, my iPhone and PowerBook. What is the unique offering for the ipad, that will be better than my existing devices? Newspapers and magazine have always been the touted usp.
Compared to the circulation of the WSJ (900k?) the very small number of ipad pre-orders probably doesn't make a very good proposition. Are they really expected to go to all the effort for another 10k sales, depending on uptake?
Apple need to offer newspapers a decent sized market or opportunity. Once sales are in the millions, attitudes will change but Apple need to "put up" first with iPhone / iPod level sales.
When the iPhone was released it didn't even have iTunes, let alone third party content. Didn't hurt its success at all.
Some folks have very short memories, I guess.
Some folks have very short memories, I guess.
The best way to sort it out is to look at their track record.I'm not sure you've noticed,but"unnamed sources"are quoted in hundreds of news stories every day.A reporter/publication/network is often more concerned with preserving their reputation than moving a stock or whatever(Yes I know!Plenty of exceptions!)Skepticism is very healthy,but I see no reason to assume this story is a "lie".
i agree hulu is what it needs - but the rumors are that hulu wants to make a paid app - will people go for a paid version when the laptop version is free? and will people pay for a subscription service? i already pay my cable company so i'm reluctant.
As someone who has done a lot of web surfing on an iPhone,I can definitely say a 10 inch screen is way better.And the iPhone is shockingly good.
There are many more 3G iPhones than original iPhones. So I wouldn't say that not having those things didn't hurt its success, shoot it sure didn't help. Of course neither did the price or the lack of 3G.
Well if you put it this way. An estimated 350k iPads have been pre ordered (Reserved for pic up and mail-order combined) and the device is not even out yet.
Going at an 20k/day rate with 14 days to go ipad will have sold something in the region of 600k devices prior to its real (touchable launch).
If this is true (i think it might be possible) and only 10% of those new iPad owners (that would be 65k than) would immediately choose to by a new digital subscription for the WSJ that would be a 7% growth in circulation for the WSJ over night and that sounds pretty big to me...
I dont know their subscriber base but it does sound like a big opportunity kicking of in a entirely new market.
Sorry for my guesstimations but i cant stand when people say iPad pre-orders are small when 350k people spend at least 500 bucks on something they never even touched!
Of course.
10 inches is better than three and a half inches (Ask any woman!)
I'm just saying for this "Ultimate Browsing Experience" Better note the word "BETTER" than a laptop etc for browsing the web, that's simply not true in so many ways, esp a low res (and don't kid yourself it's not low res) 10" screen.
1024x768 went out of style when people upgraded from 14" CRT screens.
I'm not saying it's not better than in iPhone, or course not, I'm saying it's not enough for this "Ultimate Experience"
The "ultimate experience" is not defined by resolution alone, but also by the responsiveness, the speed, intuitiveness and design of the UI and the hardware.
Many manufacturers and customers see "ultimate experience" as a synonym for "ultra high specs", and this is the main reason why competing tablets are failing and why the iPad will be a much more succesful attempt at achieving the ultimate experience..
I don't disagree there is more than 1 thing that makes an experience.
But at the moment, we have:
1: Lower res screen (less web page seen at one time)
2: No Flash content (blue box's on a web page rather than graphics)
3: No Java things running
4: Have to prop it up with your knees and call up a keyboard to type in
5: no roll over effects (will affect any touch screen)
Seeing as a PC, a MAC or a Laptop can do all of these things better, I would not personally have the balls to state that the iPad was BETTER and the ULTIMATE web browsing experience, as it's blatantly not true sorry.
That's OK, I can't stand it when people compare sales of a $500 device to sales of a $1 newspaper (I mean thats half a million devices once every 2 or 3 years compared to nearly 1 million sales every day!!!) or assume that all subscriptions are new or don't take into account the costs for newspapers to switch mediums or consider the lack of existing online subscriptions / failure of existing subscription model
It doesn't take much variation in your guesstimates for profit to turn to expensive flop, for initial growth / uptake to rapidly flatten, and 7% drop below 1% growth (which may not even be greater than falling sales elsewhere) ... and we have yet to see if Apple can actually deliver a million iPads.
Devices != newspapers but that seems to be lost on nearly everybody here and the model is far from a proven success ... but this is a Mac forum, so it is not like I don't know the bias! Just put yourself in WSJ shoes for a few minutes and try and understand their reluctance.
The link below is, in my opinion, a perfect example of what can change the whole game in content delivery, advertising and innovation of media - magazines, etc. This is where I believe the iPad is heading and I for one am super excited for it.
Sports Illustrated Tablet Demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntyXvLnxyXk
Sports Illustrated Tablet Demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntyXvLnxyXk
One big diff between papers like the WSJ or NYT and Internet news is the degree to which you can trust information from unnamed sources. At the worst elec extreme we've all seen the almost parodic posts from people saying something like, "a friend whose brother works at the shop next to the apple store in the mall told me steve jobs has decided "
the good print papers have reputations established over a century. Editors vet stories and except for occasionally ceding anonymity to an exceptionally trusted reporter, they know who the unnamed source is before the story runs. And when they make a mistake they print a correction.
I don't see any reason to doubt the story.
The crux of the issue for printed media today is timeliness. Got a relative that prints magazines like Forbes and Time. They move many TB of data daily. He explains the situation a bit like this:
With the ever increasing speed and availability of the internet, news is old in almost minutes now. Newspapers and magazines have been declining for years as they do not really provide content fast enough for today. Devices like the iPad can significantly change what a newspaper or magazine provides to the "modern era" as they change their purpose by providing a compilation of "old" news delivered in a new way (innovation).
With the ever increasing speed and availability of the internet, news is old in almost minutes now. Newspapers and magazines have been declining for years as they do not really provide content fast enough for today. Devices like the iPad can significantly change what a newspaper or magazine provides to the "modern era" as they change their purpose by providing a compilation of "old" news delivered in a new way (innovation).
The mouse cursor (actually called the "touch pointer") is
controllable by a preference in Windows 7.
Control Panel -> Pen and Touch -> Touch -> [] Show the touch pointer...
The position, transparency, size and tracking of the touch pointer
can also be changed.
Sounds interesting. Please send me a brochure.
(And seriously, what's up with your word wrap issue?)
Blah, blah, blah...those jumping on the bandwagon already will not be disappointed with the content...they already know they can surf, email and read books, and they likely understand that apps optimized for the iPad will be coming...and coming, and coming....
For those bashing the yet to be played with iPad, stop being haters...you will have your chance to bash it....let it come out and see how it does after a few months.
This over-speculation is getting silly!
For those bashing the yet to be played with iPad, stop being haters...you will have your chance to bash it....let it come out and see how it does after a few months.
This over-speculation is getting silly!
Perhaps there is something mentally wrong with me, but I would gladly pay for some quality content, over the large noise to signal ratio the internet currently possesses.
This forum is a great example, I have to read 80+ posts to find one insightful one.
Most blogs (even by well known websites) are crap now because everyone is buying into the monetizing hits business model. This means they feel they have to publish all the time or perish, and eventually resort to link baiting, and needlessly inflammatory articles. The end result is you get tops one good article in ten, from the big names.
If content providers had a subscription base again (and the guaranteed revenue), they can focus on producing less content of higher quality.
You can live in your world of free crap, I however would prefer less quantity of higher quality, if that means I need to start paying my share for the work required to produce these high quality articles... I would say its about bloody time.