Anyone who wants a camera on a tablet hasn't thought it through. Think about how dumb that would be.
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.
iPad Sees Record-Setting Adoption Rate, Poised to Become 4th-Largest Electronics Category
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anyone who wants a camera on a tablet hasn't thought it through. Think about how dumb that would be.
Popular and hot selling tablets aren't new. Palm/PalmPilot sold many millions over a decade ago (Steve inquired to buy one or more of the companies involved), and Apple's been selling millions for almost 3 years now.
Just with slightly smaller displays.
Right, but who said it wasn't? Nobody is celebrating "one iPad for every man, woman and child worldwide wohoo", but it is the fastest device from apple to be adopted at these rates, and that's what they are celebrating. Wouldn't you?
And I'm sure there are people out there waiting for something from the pc/android side, just how they'd be people out there waiting for something from apple's side if it wasn't the 1st, so what? Apple has set the benchmark, and is the 1st to market, and that's a big plus right there, just like xbox 360 and PS3. Every other competitor will be climbing up a mountain from the get go. And we're not talking some little hill here, we're talking millions of units and what, some 8 months out on the market without competition? Dell/Samsung is due out with a tab by November at the earliest? On top of that, everyone else who comes out with a tablet computer will be seen as a "copycat" by the general public. Even though chances are that apple may not sell as many tablets as all other pc/android manufacturers combined in the end, apple will sell many more than their usual market share by being the 1st to market and by having ~8 months min of no competition. Good build quality, sexy looking aesthetics, iOS, apps and future software upgrades, along with an iPad 2 next year should keep the train going just fine even after competitors enter the market. Of course, we'll have to wait and see what happens, but hey, that's the exciting part
Right, but who said it wasn't? Nobody is celebrating "one iPad for every man, woman and child worldwide wohoo", but it is the fastest device from apple to be adopted at these rates, and that's what they are celebrating. Wouldn't you?
And I'm sure there are people out there waiting for something from the pc/android side, just how they'd be people out there waiting for something from apple's side if it wasn't the 1st, so what? Apple has set the benchmark, and is the 1st to market, and that's a big plus right there, just like xbox 360 and PS3. Every other competitor will be climbing up a mountain from the get go. And we're not talking some little hill here, we're talking millions of units and what, some 8 months out on the market without competition? Dell/Samsung is due out with a tab by November at the earliest? On top of that, everyone else who comes out with a tablet computer will be seen as a "copycat" by the general public. Even though chances are that apple may not sell as many tablets as all other pc/android manufacturers combined in the end, apple will sell many more than their usual market share by being the 1st to market and by having ~8 months min of no competition. Good build quality, sexy looking aesthetics, iOS, apps and future software upgrades, along with an iPad 2 next year should keep the train going just fine even after competitors enter the market. Of course, we'll have to wait and see what happens, but hey, that's the exciting part
I agree with you for most, but I think you missed my original post. I mentioned: competition just need to come up with iPad for the rest of the world, meaning affordable and practical. Number of applications does not matter too much as long as provided by default cover everyday average user activity. For example from xx,xxx applications available in apple store, I only recognize about 10, all others are just useless for me. Apple default application set + few more is adequate to enjoy this type of device. I am sure Porsche makes a nice cars, but I will take Camry or Highlander for commute any time, specially if I have to pay for maintenance and towing. Who sells more? Same here, I think iPad is severely overpriced for what it worse to be attractive for absolute majority of people. Considering Apple brand recognition, 4.5 mils sounds like too little. I would expect 10x of it just to cover folks who really likes Apple products. I do not see any new business - it is same folks buying (actually less)... I am sure we will get something suitable very very soon! Hey, new high end Hyundai's actually have better design, look sharp and more reliable vs. Mercedes nova days and cost like 1/2, figures...Why would masses care who was first to market or copycat (Hint: droids) - it only matters on the business side (more profit).
Everyone calm down, the iPad is still going to fail. Everyone knows this except Steve Jobs and his mindless sheep. His millions upon nearly endless millions of blind sheep...everyone is wrong except me! It's just a big iPod Touch. Why would anyone pay for that? Magical? Haha what a load of crap. Nobody will want these because they don't have cameras and don't run full OS X. I mean, it doesn't even have a USB port. Because of this, it has zero purpose and no functionality. I'd rather go run Android on my Kindle while I listen to Rhapsody. iPad will fail. Actually it already has. Watch out for Microsoft Windows Slate and Pad 8 Professional this time three years from now. Apple will get owned by its slick notification interface and square boxiness that has cropped off text and IE10, or IE X ad they will originally call it because they are so witty and smart. Then you can get support for it at the Microsoft Store's Answer Bar located directly across from the Apple Store's Genius Bar in the Mall of America. Apple has a rough road ahead of them, that is for certain!
Actually I think StarTrek and many SciFi writers have predicted this since the 60s.
"...the iPad is likely to be "cannibalizing" even TVs and digital cameras..."
The iPad is neither a TV nor a digital camera, therefore it cannot "cannibalize" either of them. That is an absurd statement.
And how is it it's own category? There have been tablet PC available for many many years!
My 42'' 1080 Tv cost around $500, a very low-end economy model I got last holiday season. My iPad cost $599. Taking out of the equation I already have a TV, had I just had $600 to spend, I get the iPad that is capable of watching TV (direct competitor), get on the internet (my tv can't do that), play games (tv can't do that), and use it in bed AND on the couch (again, the tv can't do that.) So given the amount of money, $600, I am only going to buy one item, and that would be an iPad because it has a big screen, and tons of other functionality than just watching flickering images.
Plus the internet and computers are the single largest competing model that can potentially disrupt the precious cable content universe. The ability to watch any show I want keeps me from having a cable bill beyond my internet connection.
TV's are just about obsolete to me.
If you take this article and have lived in a bubble - it's accurate. But the rest of us live in the real world and the real world has changed since the DVD player hit the market. Most importantly is the importance and significant of the internet - from several points.
For one - marketing and advertising (and most importantly - SALES) on the internet didn't hit blow up until right around 1996-1997.
With the internet as widespread and used today - the use/dependency for such a device is also more widespread.
Technology (new tech) is always more easily adopted as time goes on. How fast was the adoption rate for TV's in the first year? The first car?
Also - the iPad and computing devices like it have more than a single use making it more useful. DVDs came around when people already had VHS collections and Cable was in its prime. Many people didn't see or have a need for just another way to watch a movie.
So many factors (these are just a few). When you look at scenario like the one posed in the article - you find you can't just compare apples to oranges.
For one - marketing and advertising (and most importantly - SALES) on the internet didn't hit blow up until right around 1996-1997.
With the internet as widespread and used today - the use/dependency for such a device is also more widespread.
Technology (new tech) is always more easily adopted as time goes on. How fast was the adoption rate for TV's in the first year? The first car?
Also - the iPad and computing devices like it have more than a single use making it more useful. DVDs came around when people already had VHS collections and Cable was in its prime. Many people didn't see or have a need for just another way to watch a movie.
So many factors (these are just a few). When you look at scenario like the one posed in the article - you find you can't just compare apples to oranges.
My iPad works great, and shows no signs of failing. I don't care how many they sell.
I consider Palms to be in the handheld category that are currently occupied by cell phones. And I'd be fine if you want to make it:
Mainframes
Minis
PCs
Handhelds
Tablets
I do not see any popular adoption of tablets until the iPad.
A front facing camera for a tablet might make some sense but a back facing camera would be ridiculous. If you want to look like a complete dork holding an object the size of a hardcover book or magazine to take a picture, be my guest but I don't think most people want a tablet that takes pictures.
The only "possibilities" I see is looking like a loser.
If you are on the road and see something at the spur of the moment, use your smartphone camera.
If you are on vacation, for crying out loud, take either a dedicated camera or video camera with photo capability with you. Don't be a complete dork and use a smart phone camera with no optical zoom. Tablets are for viewing and manipulating data or playing games, not for taking pictures.
Do any of you think that a lot of people would carry their tablet with them like people do with smartphones and whip it out to take a quick shot? I think not.
This is a matter of using the right tool for the job. A smartphone camera might do in a pinch when you were not planning on taking any photos or video but it is "NOT" a replacement for a dedicated video or digital camera.
I understand. "Affordable" is what the pc crowd does best. "Practical" not so much. "Practically unusable, annoying and frustrating experiences" is more like it.
Though I'd be a little worried, after reading early reports of the Galaxy Tab cost estimates near $1k.
I agree and I'd like to point out that I never said anything about the "number" of applications, I only said "apps", meaning the quality of standard software that we all get with an Apple device, mainly speaking: MAC OS X and iOS.
You must know something I don't...last I checked, MAC sales were under 3 million units and here is the iPad with 4.5 million units...sounds pretty good to me, and above avg for Apple. If anything, I'd say the iPad has added to Apple's brand recognition, which will also help with other device sales, such as MACs, Apple TV and iPhones. One great benefit about Apple's product portfolio is how they all work seamlessly with one another - thus offering someone the convenience of a one stop shop for many needs.
Well, judging by what I've seen (and remember lol) over the last decade, that depends on what product you're talking about.
We humans are lazy. Everyone knows how to drive a car, you only need to learn it once. After that, it's just a matter of personal preference and taste. But electronics are more complicated. Nobody wants to learn a new system or OS every single time you buy a new device, whether it's something entirely new, like a tablet, or a replacement/upgrade to an existing device, like a new camera or video game system. Here, 1st to market has great advantages, because once people adopt (learn) that format, or OS, they tend to stick with it and avoid learning something new, at least for a while, or until something else comes along with enough "more" to make it worth while to switch. Again, look at the xbox 360 vs PS3 case. Perfect example (though other points count, such as end user experience with MS Live and price points, being 1st to market definately helped MS in the video game industry this generation around - we humans also don't like to wait). Another example are cameras - people usually stick to one or the other between Canon and Nikon (talking SLRs here, regular pocket digital cameras are a dime a dozen). Again, it all depends on the product. Some products in this world we could careless about, and we have no problem switching manufacturers or OSs every single purchase time (like a standard DVD player) - here, 1st to market has little benefit. Other products, however, do show commitment and a following from many of us (like computers), and we will not switch manufacturer or OS with every purchase, opting instead to simply upgrade within the same product line or manufacturer as the next revs are released - here, 1st to market offers great benefits and can capture new user bases and market shares.
But it's not just the individual consumer buying iPads, some institutions are also standardizing on iPads, i.e. schools. These institutions are likely to stick with Apple for years to come, as they won't want to incur new infrastructure costs every time they buy a new tablet. As a consumer, we do the same, just on a smaller scale. How often has your accessories influenced your purchase decisions? If you're a photographer who's spent thousands on Canon lenses, chances are you're not going to look at a Nikon body next round, because you'd have to spend thousands more over the camera costs to replace all that glass with Nikon equivalents.
Here's another example: the iPod. There are many MP3 players out there today, but the iPod is still king of that hill.
Touchscreen handhelds are just small tablets. The display size difference between a iPod Touch (or PalmPilot) and an iPad is less than the display size difference between a 9" Mac Plus and a 27" iMac, yet they are both Mac personal computers.
There were even bigger differences between large and small mainframes (a SAGE system took nearly a whole football field sized bunker), and large and small minis as well.
Those are NOT tablets, they are PDAs. If you're calling anything with a screen "a tablet" - then iPod Touches and Nanos are PDAs too? They are not.
Has nothing to do with physical size of the device, and everything to do with how you used and programmed the device. The tablet era begins in 2010, with abortive efforts from 2001 onward from Microsoft and partners that never took off.
Touchscreen handhelds are not just small tablets. They are their own category now dominated by smart phones, which are not going away.
The tablet era began in the late 1980's with Go Corp and GridPad products (they got magazine cover stories also), and maybe based on Alan Kay's even earlier Dynabook concepts. The first really successful ones were small (PalmPilot and iPhone 3G), mostly because that sized forced the design of better UI paradigms for carry-able tablets.
Thinking that a large tablet computer should be significantly different from a small tablet PDA or smartphone is part of the reason why everybody failed with larger ones before the iPad.
The iPad and iPod Touch are programmed almost identically, aside from a less than 5% API difference, and run a huge amount of identical or very similar apps. I know women who carry either one in their large handbags, with similar usage.
I'm not sure I can agree with your comment about "an iPad for the rest of the world", simply because I don't believe you can make anything that resembles the iPad and its user experience at a much lower price point that $500 (for the base model). I'm sure the iPad margins are detailed elsewhere, but I know for a fact they aren't massive. And I'm pretty sure the reason they're succeeding - massively - where every other tablet attempt has failed is because a few people find them "practical"!
There isn't even a competing product on the market, much less one at a lower price point. What do you base your "overpriced" assessment on, given you have nothing to compare it to? If anything, comparing the iPad to it's nearest replacement product, a tablet PC, only flatters the iPad, and not just in price or value!
The iPad IS the Toyota of the segment. If $500-700 for a product with the capability of the iPad seems like Porsche pricing to you I would suggest you stick to the $300 eMachines.
I'm not sure I can agree with your comment about "an iPad for the rest of the world", simply because I don't believe you can make anything that resembles the iPad and its user experience at a much lower price point that $500 (for the base model). I'm sure the iPad margins are detailed elsewhere, but I know for a fact they aren't massive. And I'm pretty sure the reason they're succeeding - massively - where every other tablet attempt has failed is because a few people find them "practical"!
There isn't even a competing product on the market, much less one at a lower price point. What do you base your "overpriced" assessment on, given you have nothing to compare it to? If anything, comparing the iPad to it's nearest replacement product, a tablet PC, only flatters the iPad, and not just in price or value!
The iPad IS the Toyota of the segment. If $500-700 for a product with the capability of the iPad seems like Porsche pricing to you I would suggest you stick to the $300 eMachines.
No need to go too far for an examples. iPod Touch will do. It does exactly same thing for less, just have a smaller screen size. $299 is good amount to spend on it, not a penny more.
I was not referring to folks like you or even myself (price is not a factor for me). In order for this marvel to be own by absolute majority - the price should be way, way lower. If Apple is not going to do it, someone else will.