HP Looking to Undercut iPad Pricing With 3G-Capable Slate Device

[Ximie]

It is usually the case that the Microsoft-based computers make something, and Apple improves it.

This time, I believe it's the other way around. Apple is the first one to offer tablets, yet I think the competition will be able to improve it.

It's all been said before, camera, flash, decent operating system...

I hope Apple will be able to make a better version of the Microsoft-based tablets.

 

[Bytor65]

Apple should just cut HP (and everyone else off) at the path. Since Apple hasn't started shipping yet, great time to announce that it's including 3G on all models at the original WiFi model price. So, $499, $599, $699 for the respective 3G models. No WiFi models available.

That seems a bit Naive to me. No company gives anything away for free. I DON'T want 3G. I don't want to pay high 3G data fees, when I can live off my home wifi essentially for no additional charge, so I certainly don't want to be forced to pay more for 3G hardware.

Naturally everyone would like to have more stuff for free. Personally I think they should just give us all 64G for the 16G price.

But you have to pay the piper. Did anyone consider that Apple has no cell phone patents. They may be on the hook for more royalties than the competition.

Did anyone consider iSupplies numbers might not be gospel. $26 seems rather low for 3G + GPS HW to me.

Also wait and see what the deal is with HP. They may have a lower price, but locking you into a 2 year expensive data plan, which really costs you much more.

 

[dernhelm]

And some of us have to make a living. My netbook runs Microsoft Project and Primavera P3 quite well as well as Video Conferencing back to the office when I'm on a job site. As a matter of fact, it will do just about anything I need to do my job when I'm out of my office.

Sounds to me like the iPad is just a little playtoy - maybe Apple can call it the "Funnest tablet ever".............

You are certainly not the target demographic for the iPad. You are much better off buying a netbook from HP or Dell (or whomever, there are a lot of companies out there that sell them now).

But don't assume that simply because the iPad wasn't made with your needs in mind that somehow Apple "missed" something and thereby produced something worthless.

 

[Glideslope]

Fair competition is good. Brings out the best out of people, and brings us better technology at a better price.

I hope HP got some people scrapping these forums for what people don't like about the ipad as well as why people do like it. It's an opportunity to better compete.

I'm on the fence in regards to ipad, and holding up my hard earn cash to see what's out there. It would just be sad there's no true competition ipad. Come on MS, get your booklet tablet out!

Without any real competition in this market and field, how's Apple going to keep innovating and giving us the next killer product?

Now this is a completely personal opinion, but even though I think the ipad is pretty mediocre, it's just sad that though it's mediocre, it's still the best tablet offering out there. To me it just seems the competition just isn't being that competitive.

I hope HP gives offers something good to the table so we can start seeing great products coming out from everyone... especially in this arena.

If the ipad is still the best product in this class out there (even after HP releases their Slate)... or even by just a little; Apple's the one who'll get my cash.

Until then I'll wait and see.

ROFLMAO. Using these forums for product design. Competition is good, however, these forums promote personal bias, not innovation.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

"If steve doesn't start giving the people what they want..."

I'll answer you with this :

“If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse. " Henry Ford.

The real revolution of the ipad are his limitations. And that's why it will work much better than other tablets. Because it will do few things. Incredibly well.

It's unfortunate that people often run to this Henry Ford quote in apparent support of handing control of such decisions that affect them- and everyone- to Apple.

Henry Ford also decided buyers "can have any color of car as long as it is black". Do you drive a black car? Would the world be a better place if every car was black because a choice that should be left to consumers was instead decided by ONE guy... or one company?

If Jobs wakes up tomorrow and decides that all Apple devices should be pepto bismol pink with yellow & green dots, how soon will there be people posting things like "I'm not a fanboy, but I was sick of white, silver, black and mainstream colors", "why can't <windows manufacturer> be as innovative at color selections?", and so on?

For example, the iPad OS is underpinned in OS-X. It has a relatively easy capability to run Flash, yet Jobs/Apple is simply choosing for us (like Ford and his "any color as long as it is black" stance) that it shall not. As a result, chunks of the Internet will not work... for techies AND for grandma & grandpa. It's great that Apple wants the world to shift to HTML5 + H.264 + Javascript solutions instead of Flash (and they even have good reasoning related to hardware demands of Flash), but Apple could still support that drive while providing the EASY option of Flash to iPad buyers ala a solution like ClickToFlash. Every time the techie or grandma chooses to enable Flash, they could be met with a brief explanation that Flash will burn their battery a bit faster, etc. But still, wouldn't it be nicer to let the BUYER decide, rather than having Jobs or Apple decide for the buyer for something as commonly and widely available as Flash?

For that techie and grandma who buys an iPad expecting a great Internet experience, that experience is inevitably going to be less... NOT because the iPad couldn't deliver Flash, but because Apple is choosing that fail (to run Flash) for their customers.

Henry Ford chose for his customers too: ye shall like black and only black, allowing many other competitors to roll out cars in other colors and take market share from Ford. Ford quickly came around to the idea of giving customers what they want.

The "faster horses" quote is loaded with arrogance, basically pointing out that his prospective buyers lacked imagination. Were people that limited back then? And are people as limited now... that we need Apple to decide such stuff for us, rather than simply giving us the very easy option and letting us decide for ourselves if we want to burn battery power a little faster, or hold out for the HTML5 + H.264 + Javascript version that might be implemented someday?

I'm a big Apple fan and have many Apple products. But when they are wrong, I'm not so stuck on them that I can rationalize why limiting options- especially EASY options like a Flash plugin- for BUYERS like me is a good thing. It's not. What was that stat the other day: something like there were 7 Million iPhone users trying to access something in Flash in the month of December alone. That's 7 Million disappointments in NOT being able to see or do something they wanted to do with THEIR iPhone... not because it couldn't do it, but because Apple arbitrarily decided it will not allow it. Is that good?

I hope HP and others roll out "wow" competitors for iPad, that include the many features that even some of the fanboys are griping about. Competition keeps monopolist arrogance in check. If buyers will show that they want features like Flash, web cam, etc, maybe Apple will decide to give in to delivering what buyers want (instead of trying to tell buyers what they should want- just like Ford's "black" color choices). Hand it all to any company- Apple included- and Jobs could decide pepto bismol pink is the way forward, and, being the ONLY remaining player (if things would go as some here seem to want it to go)- we'd all just have to be happy about it.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

...how can you be the number one music retailer in the entire world (besting the wal-mart giant) and only break even with sales? I'm sure iTunes has larger profits off it's store than mos are led to believe.

Not sure what one has to do w/ the other. You can GROSS a lot of money without NETTING much profit. Apple does make money on the iTMS, but "big picture" it's a splat of ink on Apple's bottom line.

 

[Journojulz]

It's all been said before, camera, flash, decent operating system...

camera will be out within the first year

flash will never happen as it competes with app/itunes/ibook store. Its sadly a case of love it or 'leave'

Decent OS? i ask you to look again at what this thing is designed to do - and what its NOT designed to do.
There is the Modbook for those that want a full OSX - but what is the point?
Its like putting a V8 in a Vespa - you just don't need it.

 

[E.Lizardo]

LOL! I'm in the Hater camp when if comes to the iTampon...
So disappointed; where's snow leopard on this portable? That's what I really want.

I just love your humor!I takes me back to seventh grade!

 

[christian_k]

I agree. A WiFi-only model is a silly move. Wouldn't it be a smarter business move to have 3G in every model knowing the consumer is likely to subscribe to 3G service at some point? Why not have that automatic upsell potential in every single model?

3G capability by default should be a no-brainer for a device like this.

I agree. I could only use a WiFi iPad at home. There are very few open WiFi networks in Germany (legal issues make it dangerous to operate an open hotspot) and paid hotspots are rare and often even more expensive than 3G access. Sometimes you even have to pay via credit card number over an unprotected WiFi which is very risky.

But 3G networks offer good coverage and are affordable now (10 Euros per month including 500 MB at HSDPA speed or 20-25 Euros including 5 Gig are typical deals).

I do not like all the artificial limitations of the iPad, but I can imagine to buy one because it is great anyway. But 3G is a _must_.

Christian

 

[shiseiryu1]

Totally agree

To people who want to put down the iTunes App store:

Someone said that 99% of the 150,000 apps on the App store are total crap -- If that is true, then there are 1500 apps that are good. I think having a selection of 1500 apps that are really good, easy to buy, easy to install, and cause ZERO problems with your OS when installed is VERY IMPRESSIVE! Looking at the cost of those apps, most of which are UNDER $3, and it is even more impressive.

To people who say they want to run a full open OS:

Well, buy a netbook, Windows Tablet, or a MacBook. I don't understand why you put down Apple for not putting OSX on the iPad. By NOT having a full OS on the iPad, Apple is guaranteeing that: Every app will work as intended, there will be NO VIRUSES, there will be NO ROUGE apps that steal personal information, etc. I am a technical guy that started on a Timex Sinclair back in the day, and man, I welcome the iPhone OS. Times have changed.

To people who doubt what the iPad can do:

Look at the how much better the iPad apps look compared to their iPhone counterparts. The Address Book, email, and Calader are all AMAZING looking on the iPad. iWork looks AMAZING on the iPad. Give the App developers some time, and I think they are going to go crazy on the iPad! Look for MUCH better games and things like Quicken, Photo Editors, CAD programs, Databases etc... Don't underestimate what the bigger screen real estate is going to allow.

Also, Apple said they are charging $30 for the full iWork Suite. ($10 per App) This tells me that the trend of the Apps being very inexpensive will continue for iPad specific apps.

Most of the people I talk to are VERY interested in the iPad. Even people who could care less about computers (My Parents) have expressed an interest in getting one...

Really... An Instant-ON tablet, 10 hours of use, beautiful multi-touch screen, built in iPod, ability to watch HD quality movies and TV, ability to download HD quality movies and TV from ANYWHERE, abiltiy to play fun games, ability to surf the web (even without Flash), ability to do work processing, speadsheets, etc, Acess to 1000's (150,000) apps, No worries about viruses, no worries about configuration issues... And on, and on...

I would say that this is what many people want!

I know I do...

When I need the full functionality of OSX or Windows 7, I will get out my MacBook Pro...

But for the other 90% of the time, the iPad will fit my needs quite nicely.

I totally agree with this.

 

[hotshotharry]

I'm really starting to see why so many people are turned off by apple's arrogance and the fanboys immidiate need to rationalize all the short comings ...

Sometimes I just need the Internet to work ... Save the flash fight for another day ...

As great as apple is , they still have a long way to go. Steve brings slot to apple ( might be an understatement ) but he also holds apple back!

 

[Shasterball]

Likewise iPad - this is genius device for people who want a web browsing, film watching, music listening, game playing, emailing and word processing machine that you can <gasp> turn on and off like a calculator.

If that concept doesn't elicit a sigh or relief - then the iPad is not for you.

Yep. It's not for me... Maybe if I actually believed that you could use it for medium level word processing without the ridiculous keyboard attachment, I would think about it. Maybe if it had a stylus so I could take quick notes on it, I would think about it. But it seems like word processing/note taking input will just be very awkward.

 

[Flavioparentiq]

It's unfortunate that people often run to this Henry Ford quote in apparent support of handing control of such decisions that affect them- and everyone- to Apple.

Henry Ford also decided buyers "can have any color of car as long as it is black". Do you drive a black car? Would the world be a better place if every car was black because a choice that should be left to consumers was instead decided by ONE guy... or one company?

If Jobs wakes up tomorrow and decides that all Apple devices should be pepto bismol pink with yellow & green dots, how soon will there be people posting things like "I'm not a fanboy, but I was sick of white, silver, black and mainstream colors", "why can't <windows manufacturer> be as innovative at color selections?", and so on?

For example, the iPad OS is underpinned in OS-X. It has a relatively easy capability to run Flash, yet Jobs/Apple is simply choosing for us (like Ford and his "any color as long as it is black" stance) that it shall not. As a result, chunks of the Internet will not work... for techies AND for grandma & grandpa. It's great that Apple wants the world to shift to HTML5 + H.264 + Javascript solutions instead of Flash (and they even have good reasoning related to hardware demands of Flash), but Apple could still support that drive while providing the EASY option of Flash to iPad buyers ala a solution like ClickToFlash. Every time the techie or grandma chooses to enable Flash, they could be met with a brief explanation that Flash will burn their battery a bit faster, etc. But still, wouldn't it be nicer to let the BUYER decide, rather than having Jobs or Apple decide for the buyer for something as commonly and widely available as Flash?

For that techie and grandma who buys an iPad expecting a great Internet experience, that experience is inevitably going to be less... NOT because the iPad couldn't deliver Flash, but because Apple is choosing that fail (to run Flash) for their customers.

Henry Ford chose for his customers too: ye shall like black and only black, allowing many other competitors to roll out cars in other colors and take market share from Ford. Ford quickly came around to the idea of giving customers what they want.

The "faster horses" quote is loaded with arrogance, basically pointing out that his prospective buyers lacked imagination. Were people that limited back then? And are people as limited now... that we need Apple to decide such stuff for us, rather than simply giving us the very easy option and letting us decide for ourselves if we want to burn battery power a little faster, or hold out for the HTML5 + H.264 + Javascript version that might be implemented someday?

I'm a big Apple fan and have many Apple products. But when they are wrong, I'm not so stuck on them that I can rationalize why limiting options- especially EASY options like a Flash plugin- for BUYERS like me is a good thing. It's not.

I hope HP and others roll out "wow" competitors for iPad, that include the many features that even some of the fanboys are griping about. Competition keeps monopolist arrogance in check. If buyers will show that they want features like Flash, web cam, etc, maybe Apple will decide to give in to delivering what buyers want (instead of trying to tell buyers what they should want- just like Ford's "black" color choices). Hand it all to any company- Apple included- and Jobs could decide pepto bismol pink is the way forward, and, being the ONLY remaining player (if things would go as some here seem to want it to go)- we'd all just have to be happy about it.

Hm.. so Apple is wrong. Good to know, I was waiting someone to finally tell me if I should keep or sell the APPL stocks I have. Thank you.

But, hold on..

Who are you to say that Apple is doing the wrong choice?

Maybe you should have at least the patience to wait to see the ipad's results to say that Apple is doing the wrong choices.

But maybe you know something I don't.

I mean, if you have the arrogance to say a successful corporation like Apple is doing wrong choices you MUST know something I don't.

I don't even know how the Apple's computer the are precisly assembled, how do the components works.. the real manufacturing costs, let alone the marketing and the corporation stategies mixed with some geopolitics.

So, again, thank you for the help. Now I know apple is doing the wrong choices.

I do own some AAPL, but I don't think i'll sell them, not until I see the results of the last quarter of 2010 and the ipad numbers. But you are free to sell them, if you own some.

 

[shiseiryu1]

Decent OS...

camera will be out within the first year

flash will never happen as it competes with app/itunes/ibook store. Its sadly a case of love it or 'leave'

Decent OS? i ask you to look again at what this thing is designed to do - and what its NOT designed to do.
There is the Modbook for those that want a full OSX - but what is the point?
Its like putting a V8 in a Vespa - you just don't need it.

I tend to agree with this. I also think that over time (as the iPad and the OS matures) there will likely be less differences between it's OS and a "full OS". However, the good thing is that this OS will have matured with the new multitouch world in mind instead of trying to take something backwards like Windows and throw some clunky UI on top of it to make it "touch friendly". Apple is right to pursue it this way instead.

 

[mdelaney123]

Apple is the first one to offer tablets, yet I think the competition will be able to improve it.

It's all been said before, camera, flash, decent operating system...

You are missing the point of the iPad. The millions of people who buy an iPad DO NOT WANT A FULL OPERATING SYSTEM.

Look at all the people that purchased a Kindle when it was $400+... Did they want a full OS?

Imagine, a Kindle with a full color multitouch screen, a full iPod, HD Movies, Games, etc for $500...

That is the iPad.

Please stop trying to think of it as a Laptop.

If you want a Full OS, you will buy a laptop or a desktop.

 

[Eidorian]

It's unfortunate that people often run to this Henry Ford quote in apparent support of handing control of such decisions that affect them- and everyone- to Apple.

Henry Ford also decided buyers "can have any color of car as long as it is black". Do you drive a black car? Would the world be a better place if every car was black because a choice that should be left to consumers was instead decided by ONE guy... or one company?

If Jobs wakes up tomorrow and decides that all Apple devices should be pepto bismol pink with yellow & green dots, how soon will there be people posting things like "I'm not a fanboy, but I was sick of white, silver, black and mainstream colors", "why can't <windows manufacturer> be as innovative at color selections?", and so on?

For example, the iPad OS is underpinned in OS-X. It has a relatively easy capability to run Flash, yet Jobs/Apple is simply choosing for us (like Ford and his "any color as long as it is black" stance) that it shall not. As a result, chunks of the Internet will not work... for techies AND for grandma & grandpa. It's great that Apple wants the world to shift to HTML5 + H.264 + Javascript solutions instead of Flash (and they even have good reasoning related to hardware demands of Flash), but Apple could still support that drive while providing the EASY option of Flash to iPad buyers ala a solution like ClickToFlash. Every time the techie or grandma chooses to enable Flash, they could be met with a brief explanation that Flash will burn their battery a bit faster, etc. But still, wouldn't it be nicer to let the BUYER decide, rather than having Jobs or Apple decide for the buyer for something as commonly and widely available as Flash?

For that techie and grandma who buys an iPad expecting a great Internet experience, that experience is inevitably going to be less... NOT because the iPad couldn't deliver Flash, but because Apple is choosing that fail (to run Flash) for their customers.

Henry Ford chose for his customers too: ye shall like black and only black, allowing many other competitors to roll out cars in other colors and take market share from Ford. Ford quickly came around to the idea of giving customers what they want.

The "faster horses" quote is loaded with arrogance, basically pointing out that his prospective buyers lacked imagination. Were people that limited back then? And are people as limited now... that we need Apple to decide such stuff for us, rather than simply giving us the very easy option and letting us decide for ourselves if we want to burn battery power a little faster, or hold out for the HTML5 + H.264 + Javascript version that might be implemented someday?

I'm a big Apple fan and have many Apple products. But when they are wrong, I'm not so stuck on them that I can rationalize why limiting options- especially EASY options like a Flash plugin- for BUYERS like me is a good thing. It's not. What was that stat the other day: something like there were 7 Million iPhone users trying to access something in Flash in the month of December alone. That's 7 Million disappointments in NOT being able to see or do something they wanted to do with THEIR iPhone... not because it couldn't do it, but because Apple arbitrarily decided it will not allow it. Is that good?

I hope HP and others roll out "wow" competitors for iPad, that include the many features that even some of the fanboys are griping about. Competition keeps monopolist arrogance in check. If buyers will show that they want features like Flash, web cam, etc, maybe Apple will decide to give in to delivering what buyers want (instead of trying to tell buyers what they should want- just like Ford's "black" color choices). Hand it all to any company- Apple included- and Jobs could decide pepto bismol pink is the way forward, and, being the ONLY remaining player (if things would go as some here seem to want it to go)- we'd all just have to be happy about it.

Waiting for Apple to make a choice gets so boring.

 

[ShiftyPig]

You are missing the point of the iPad. (1) The millions of people who buy an iPad DO NOT WANT A FULL OPERATING SYSTEM.

(2) Look at all the people that purchased a Kindle when it was $400+... Did they want a full OS?

1 - source? research? (wild guess?)

2 - source? figures?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Hm.. so apple is wrong. Good to know, I was waiting someone to finally tell me if I should keep or sell the APPL stocks I have. thank you.

But, hold on..

Who are you to say that apple is doing the wrong choice?

Maybe You should have at least the patience to wait for the ipad's sells to say apple is doing wrong choices.
,
But Maybe you know something I don't.

I mean, if you have the arrogance to say a successful corporation like Apple is doing wrong choices you MUST know something I don't.

I don't even know how the apple computer the are precisly assembled, how do the components works.. the real manufacturing costs, let alone the marketing and the corporation stategie mixed with some geopolitics.
So, again, thank you for the help.

I do own some AAPL, but I don't think i'll sell them, not until I see the results of the last quarter of 2010 and the ipad numbers. But you are free to sell them, if you own some.

I'm not taking the stance that Apple is wrong in all things. They do many things very right. But they do some things wrong.

If you are taking the stance that letting each buyer choose for themselves is worse than letting any company- Apple included- choose for them, I'll fully disagree with you on that one... especially when it is something as simple as letting hardware and software that could run Flash run it.

I appreciate that this is Macrumors, and thus there should be massively passionate Apple fans here. I (too) have made lots of money on Apple stock. But neither should get in the way of recognizing that something as simple as that should be acceptable. If the lack of that option results in less buyers (or people holding out for version 2+), then AAPL shows less than maximized revenues & profits.

Blind adulation never ends well. Even if we completely buy the argument for HTML5 + H.265 + javascript as the obvious replacement for Flash, that migration won't happen overnight... and certainly not by the end of life for all these initial iPads that will soon be bought. Giving their buyers the (easy) option to burn their batteries faster if they want to do so would simply result in more people wanting to buy iPads... and more people being happier about their iPad purchase. We APPL stockholders win most with more sales, not less... and not delayed (while those in the know await version 2+ which should have the missing features that should have been there from the start).

Like Ford and his "black" car color choices(?), such corporate decision-making creates and facilitates opportunities for competitors to take share. Being a big Apple fan myself, I would rather they squeeze out those opportunities by including features that will prove important to their customers. Both Apple (and AAPL stockholders) and its customers would win that way.

 

[mdelaney123]

1 - source? research? (wild guess?)

2 - source? figures?

Just using a little logic... If you buy an iPad, you are obviously OK with it not having a full OS. And, yes, I think it will sell millions of them.

Again, logic. The Kindle was a HUGE seller at all of it's price points. It did ONE thing.

The iPad does the eBook thing and MUCH MUCH more.

I LOL when someone on the board is making a very valid point and someone else responds with nit-pick requests for stats and links.

 

[Journojulz]

Yep. It's not for me... Maybe if I actually believed that you could use it for medium level word processing without the ridiculous keyboard attachment, I would think about it. Maybe if it had a stylus so I could take quick notes on it, I would think about it. But it seems like word processing/note taking input will just be very awkward.

There are stylii on ebay. And i imagine wireless keyboards will work too.

Not sure how easy it will be to type for an hour on a glass sheet, but will have to give it a go.

wouldn't have thought typing on an iphone was as easy as it is.

A hardware keyboard could easily be made with the rubber sheets that sit under remote control keys, tactile press and makes contact with a pad of a material with capacitance.

Would roll up in a cigar tube when you are done and lay flat on the pad if you HAD to have one.

 

[b0ned0me]

Henry Ford also decided buyers "can have any color of car as long as it is black". Do you drive a black car? Would the world be a better place if every car was black because a choice that should be left to consumers was instead decided by ONE guy... or one company?
...
Henry Ford chose for his customers too: ye shall like black and only black, allowing many other competitors to roll out cars in other colors and take market share from Ford. Ford quickly came around to the idea of giving customers what they want.

If you are going to pick funky examples, you should try not to pick ones that contradict your point. Ford actually started out making T's in different colours, then figured out that no-one cared about the colour if it was cheap enough. Then the black-only (cheapest toughest colour available) T became the most-sold car on the planet. For the last few year or so (by which time the T was a museum piece, 18 years old) they offered colours again.

The early cars had no doors and it took 7 years before they introduced a ROOF, for gods sake. How many times do you think people stood around rubbing their chins saying 'Well, I'm sorely tempted to drop four months wages on this Model T, but Buick do a blue car, and it's only twice the price"?
That's without going into the small matter of the 50% market share in the US, and years of 100% growth, which I'm sure Jobs wouldn't mind.

 

[LeviG]

On the topic of the first post

Which HP slate device are they referring to, theres been rumours of an android option (like the tegra based asus seen at ces), this is likely true considering the new android netbook from HP, and we've seen the windows 7 version (and the pegatron alternative).

Personally speaking I'm not buying the iPad at it's current price, I don't think what it offers is worth the money for my needs. If it does however push the prices of what I see as better options down in price it's all good in my view as it saves me money. Having said that I've no idea what the local price of the iPad will be in the UK so my opinion is based on expected costs when converted from $ to £

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If you are going to pick funky examples, you should try not to pick ones that contradict your point. Ford actually started out making T's in different colours, then figured out that no-one cared about the colour if it was cheap enough. Then the black-only (cheapest toughest colour available) T became the most-sold car on the planet. For the last few year or so (by which time the T was a museum piece, 18 years old) they offered colours again.

The early cars had no doors and it took 7 years before they introduced a ROOF, for gods sake. How many times do you think people stood around rubbing their chins saying 'Well, I'm sorely tempted to drop four months wages on this Model T, but Buick do a blue car, and it's only twice the price"?
That's without going into the small matter of the 50% market share in the US, and years of 100% growth, which I'm sure Jobs wouldn't mind.

Thanks for the history lesson as you know it. I offered a Ford example to illustrate that Ford was not always right BECAUSE the original poster to which I responded with this offered the "faster horses" FORD quote. Is his Ford quote example also "funky"?

And more to the point, do you slice this out to argue that it makes perfect sense for Apple to make such decisions for its buyers, rather than let buyers make such decisions for themselves... especially when (again using the example of a Flash plugin) such an option would add NO financial cost to Apple to allow, nor any financial cost to iPad buyers to receive? Ford could have lessened its costs and price by arbitrarily deciding to leave the tires off the cars or leaving out a piece of the motor too.

Or are you just picking on ONE Ford quote that might cast similar decision-making by Apple in a negative light, but not another Ford quote that was used to favorably support Apple limiting the choices of its product buyers by forcing arbitrary Apple decisions upon their buyers?

 

[ChazUK]

Even foxconn are jumping onto the tablet bandwagon....
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/iwonder-why-the-logo-is-upside-down/

iWonder if this will piss anyone off at Apple?

 

[Friscohoya]

It's unfortunate that people often run to this Henry Ford quote in apparent support of handing control of such decisions that affect them- and everyone- to Apple.

Henry Ford also decided buyers "can have any color of car as long as it is black". Do you drive a black car? Would the world be a better place if every car was black because a choice that should be left to consumers was instead decided by ONE guy... or one company?

If Jobs wakes up tomorrow and decides that all Apple devices should be pepto bismol pink with yellow & green dots, how soon will there be people posting things like "I'm not a fanboy, but I was sick of white, silver, black and mainstream colors", "why can't <windows manufacturer> be as innovative at color selections?", and so on?

For example, the iPad OS is underpinned in OS-X. It has a relatively easy capability to run Flash, yet Jobs/Apple is simply choosing for us (like Ford and his "any color as long as it is black" stance) that it shall not. As a result, chunks of the Internet will not work... for techies AND for grandma & grandpa. It's great that Apple wants the world to shift to HTML5 + H.264 + Javascript solutions instead of Flash (and they even have good reasoning related to hardware demands of Flash), but Apple could still support that drive while providing the EASY option of Flash to iPad buyers ala a solution like ClickToFlash. Every time the techie or grandma chooses to enable Flash, they could be met with a brief explanation that Flash will burn their battery a bit faster, etc. But still, wouldn't it be nicer to let the BUYER decide, rather than having Jobs or Apple decide for the buyer for something as commonly and widely available as Flash?

For that techie and grandma who buys an iPad expecting a great Internet experience, that experience is inevitably going to be less... NOT because the iPad couldn't deliver Flash, but because Apple is choosing that fail (to run Flash) for their customers.

Henry Ford chose for his customers too: ye shall like black and only black, allowing many other competitors to roll out cars in other colors and take market share from Ford. Ford quickly came around to the idea of giving customers what they want.

The "faster horses" quote is loaded with arrogance, basically pointing out that his prospective buyers lacked imagination. Were people that limited back then? And are people as limited now... that we need Apple to decide such stuff for us, rather than simply giving us the very easy option and letting us decide for ourselves if we want to burn battery power a little faster, or hold out for the HTML5 + H.264 + Javascript version that might be implemented someday?

I'm a big Apple fan and have many Apple products. But when they are wrong, I'm not so stuck on them that I can rationalize why limiting options- especially EASY options like a Flash plugin- for BUYERS like me is a good thing. It's not. What was that stat the other day: something like there were 7 Million iPhone users trying to access something in Flash in the month of December alone. That's 7 Million disappointments in NOT being able to see or do something they wanted to do with THEIR iPhone... not because it couldn't do it, but because Apple arbitrarily decided it will not allow it. Is that good?

I hope HP and others roll out "wow" competitors for iPad, that include the many features that even some of the fanboys are griping about. Competition keeps monopolist arrogance in check. If buyers will show that they want features like Flash, web cam, etc, maybe Apple will decide to give in to delivering what buyers want (instead of trying to tell buyers what they should want- just like Ford's "black" color choices). Hand it all to any company- Apple included- and Jobs could decide pepto bismol pink is the way forward, and, being the ONLY remaining player (if things would go as some here seem to want it to go)- we'd all just have to be happy about it.

Actually no. Some other enterprising individual, let's call them toyota or GM (hypothetically of course), and build a blue car or a white car. Point is, if you dont like it, dont buy. Buy something else with the feature set that you want and let the market decide. If it aint good it wont succeed.