Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wow, Steve must feel very good about the iPad. Do you remember those post from last year about people complaining how bad the iPad is? It's so funny to read these comments again. :p

Most people tend to reject anything different, their philosophy is 'I want what I had yesterday, but better/faster/etc'. They don't deal well with paradigm shifts.

Remember when the wii was announced? The entire internet proclaimed that there was no way it wasn't going to crash and burn, and Nintendo had lost it's mind. It went on to completely wipe the floor with all Microsoft/Sony's consoles in terms of sales. Nintendo would have probably failed miserably if they simply made a specced out gamecube.
 
Haha, to be honest it feels good to see Steve this energetic on stage again. Much needed.
 
Thanks, I just tried that for a minute - it was amazing to think for myself ... the outcome was that I still like the iPad2 better than the Samsung Galaxy Tab. And you are right, it will do me good ... since I will get the iPad2 and will enjoy it.

So that means you've tried the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 then. Funny, it's not released yet.

Tony
 
Haha, to be honest it feels good to see Steve this energetic on stage again. Much needed.

Yeah, he looked thin, but it's hard to believe he's sick from his energy level. Say what you will about him (and I do :)), but that man certainly has genuine passion for what he does as opposed to phony passion you see from most any other CEO.

Tony
 
User experience is based on specs only to the point that you need to have your hardware spec'd highly enough to provide the user experience you want.

For example (and I am going to make these "specs" up), perhaps 1 GHz chip is too slow to provide a silky smooth user experience, but 1.25 GHz chip is powerful enough. Perhaps 128 MB of RAM isn't enough to run the OS smoothly but 512 MB is the minimum that it takes to work well.

Apple's approach is to put in the 1.25 GHz chip and the 512 MB RAM and call it a day. They have produced a tablet that provides a "silky smooth user experience", they have kept their costs down, and that's how they market it and sell it to the consumer.

Other tablet company's approach would be to sell it on the specs. The bullet points would read "1.25 GHz processor! 512 MB of RAM!" Which can be misleading because those numbers by themselves tell you nothing. Is tablet A with 1 gig of RAM better than tablet B with 512 MB of RAM? Can you unequivocally answer "yes" without also knowing what kind of OS kernel, what kind of apps, what kind of memory management is going on under the hood? Are we, for example, comparing an iOS tablet with a Windows 7 tablet?

Apple's tablet has 512 MB of RAM while some competitors might be offering 1 gig, 2 gigs even. By specs alone, Apple's offering looks terrible! By specs alone, Apple had better offer 1 gig, mininum, just to keep up with the competition. This of course would raise the iPad's price or reduce Apple's profit margins. And it is the "specs alone" people that argue in the forums that Apple's offering is so outdated, so obsolete, so behind the competition.

Yet people who actually try and use an iPad, myself included, don't even realize (or care) how much RAM is in the device. I just know that it works well, it's smooth, it's responsive, and it runs the apps I want. That's user experience. I've never once thought "Gosh, my iPad would be even better if it had twice the RAM!"

Now, of course, eventually someone's going to come up with some great apps that actually use a lot of RAM, and my iPad might struggle to keep up. That translates into "poor user experience" (sluggish performance) at which point I will say "man, my iPad is getting too slow to run the modern software. I'd better upgrade". There's your example, once again, of user experience driving the need for better specs. But it is not the other way around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So that means you've tried the Samsung Galaxy 10.1 then. Funny, it's not released yet.

Tony

If you have the choice between something you can use and something that is not released yet released, I'd say I like the actual product better.

Bu then, that's just me:)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)

What's all the arguing about?

Another great Apple product has forced the lame competition to up their game or face further embarrassment. End of story. This happens every few ****ing months. Apple releases something new or a great upgrade and everyone else is made to look retarded.

Move on, people. It's just business as usual.
 
can anyone explain to me how samsung makes chips for apple, yet both their product lines are in direct competition? ive always wondered about that.

im sure theres alot of corporate mumbo jumbo involved, but any ideas anyone?:confused:

You gotta think different. Consider that an American cigarette company owns Kraft cheese company. Other competitive tobacco companies can buy Kraft cheese for their workers lunches and it doesn't make a whit of difference to the competitiveness of each company.

Samsung's various component companies are as separate from the Samsung appliance company as the cigarettes and cheese in my above example. They aren't structured for vertical integration, so no advantage and no competition.
 
User experience is based on specs only to the point that you need to have your hardware spec'd highly enough to provide the user experience you want.

For example (and I am going to make these "specs" up), perhaps 1 GHz chip is too slow to provide a silky smooth user experience, but 1.25 GHz chip is powerful enough. Perhaps 128 MB of RAM isn't enough to run the OS smoothly but 512 MB is the minimum that it takes to work well.

Apple's approach is to put in the 1.25 GHz chip and the 512 MB RAM and call it a day. They have produced a tablet that provides a "silky smooth user experience", they have kept their costs down, and that's how they market it and sell it to the consumer.

Other tablet company's approach would be to sell it on the specs. The bullet points would read "1.25 GHz processor! 512 MB of RAM!" Which can be misleading because those numbers by themselves tell you nothing. Is tablet A with 1 gig of RAM better than tablet B with 512 MB of RAM? Can you unequivocally answer "yes" without also knowing what kind of OS kernel, what kind of apps, what kind of memory management is going on under the hood? Are we, for example, comparing an iOS tablet with a Windows 7 tablet?

Apple's tablet has 512 MB of RAM while some competitors might be offering 1 gig, 2 gigs even. By specs alone, Apple's offering looks terrible! By specs alone, Apple had better offer 1 gig, mininum, just to keep up with the competition. This of course would raise the iPad's price or reduce Apple's profit margins. And it is the "specs alone" people that argue in the forums that Apple's offering is so outdated, so obsolete, so behind the competition.

Yet people who actually try and use an iPad, myself included, don't even realize (or care) how much RAM is in the device. I just know that it works well, it's smooth, it's responsive, and it runs the apps I want. That's user experience. I've never once thought "Gosh, my iPad would be even better if it had twice the RAM!"

Now, of course, eventually someone's going to come up with some great apps that actually use a lot of RAM, and my iPad might struggle to keep up. That translates into "poor user experience" (sluggish performance) at which point I will say "man, my iPad is getting too slow to run the modern software. I'd better upgrade". There's your example, once again, of user experience driving the need for better specs. But it is not the other way around.

You don't care about RAM, but when high res gaes start coming out or apps that have a higher memory footprint and try to keep multiple apps open, it DOES matter. It certainly is at least a consideration. Memory space is an absolute. It has very little to do with the OS but rather what a developer is able to DO with that memory space. If Apple has 1 GB instead of 512 MB, some developers would be more comfortable giving us a better user experience like high res graphics in games by taking up more memory footprint.

Plus, except for RAM, it's not like Apple also doesn't display their processor speed and core number. It's was the first thing they said when introducing the iPad 2.

Tony
 
User experience depends on specs and specs only. Every single aspect of "user experience" is defined by specs. Every design starts with "specs". OS features, GUI features - it's all specs.

An iPad arguably has a better user experience than a computer. Not more functionality, but a better experience. Instant on, better interaction with the device, portability, weight. All on a 1Ghz dual core ARM chip.

User experience is about design. Even speed is about design and not specs. If you chuck more hardware at something, it will run faster, fair enough. But if you optimise your code, design it properly.. Ideally hardware should regress in speed in favour of efficient optimised software. Do more with less, lower power. But that's not how marketing works, you can't market a new processor that's slower than the old one, you can't market really fast software, at least not to a normal person. A computer is like a car to most users, they want it fast as hell with neon lights.

Over time when more and more media and services that we consume move into the cloud, thats when you will see speed regression. At both the user end, and the server end. Users wont need any particularly capable hardware, and companies will want fast efficient code that causes less strain on their servers and datacentres.

That's why I'm a software person. To me hardware is the least relevant and least interesting part of the puzzle, beyond aesthetics of course. I sit here typing this on my 1.4Ghz MacBook Air that boots up and runs faster than any other computer I've used at any price point (well you know what I mean, I'm not claiming I'll toast you with video encoding).
 
Actually user experience has little to do with specs. That is why the iPhone turned the entire smartphone industry upside down. All phone makers had were spec sheets. They did not actually have any functionality to the phone. There is a big difference between saying a device can do something and having it actually be able to do something in a way someone would want to use it.

You just do not get it. Every aspect of functionality is spec-ed BEFORE the design even begins. You are just talking about the narrowly defined spec as displayed next to the phone on the store shelf.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)

What's all the arguing about?

Another great Apple product has forced the lame competition to up their game or face further embarrassment. End of story. This happens every few ****ing months. Apple releases something new or a great upgrade and everyone else is made to look retarded.

Move on, people. It's just business as usual.

And that benefits you how? Are you Apple? Did you do any of that?

Tony
 
Setting aside the iPad vs Samsung argument for one brief moment;

Perhaps the most revealing fact of all, is the insecurity and poor self esteem of so many individuals here.

To have the incessant need to attach oneself to a product, then gloat & bash the competition, reveals the sad state of affairs in peoples lives.

To have a burning desire to "be right" and "quote your leader for validation" is a clear indication of insecurity, uncertainty, indecisiveness, failure to trust your own decisions and detachment from ones own life.

To live vicariously through a man you trust, are in awe of, and respect more than yourselves, speaks volumes about who you are.

To become as upset and combative as many are here, is cult like behavior.

Don't look for Steve's approval, think for yourselves. It will do you good.


LOL.

Your post is funny given the ridiculous amount of hypocrisy it is steeped in...

Hey but welcome to Mac Rumors new guy!
 
Wow, Steve must feel very good about the iPad. Do you remember those post from last year about people complaining how bad the iPad is? It's so funny to read these comments again. :p

I wonder what these guys have to say now.
 
An iPad arguably has a better user experience than a computer. Not more functionality, but a better experience. Instant on, better interaction with the device, portability, weight. All on a 1Ghz dual core ARM chip.

User experience is about design. Even speed is about design and not specs. If you chuck more hardware at something, it will run faster, fair enough. But if you optimise your code, design it properly.. Ideally hardware should regress in speed in favour of efficient optimised software. Do more with less, lower power. But that's not how marketing works, you can't market a new processor that's slower than the old one, you can't market really fast software, at least not to a normal person. A computer is like a car to most users, they want it fast as hell with neon lights.

Over time when more and more media and services that we consume move into the cloud, thats when you will see speed regression. At both the user end, and the server end. Users wont need any particularly capable hardware, and companies will want fast efficient code that causes less strain on their servers and datacentres.

That's why I'm a software person. To me hardware is the least relevant and least interesting part of the puzzle, beyond aesthetics of course. I sit here typing this on my 1.4Ghz MacBook Air that boots up and runs faster than any other computer I've used at any price point (well you know what I mean, I'm not claiming I'll toast you with video encoding).

Let's see:
  • Instant on - it's a spec (boot time)
  • better interaction with the device - that's questionable (depends on application) you probably refer to a touch screen, which is a spec
  • portability - two specs: size and weight

Any way you look at it, it's all about specs. Boot time gets improved when computer uses SSD instead of HDD. When you say "runs faster" again, you refer to SSD (because we all know that MBA does not run games faster than a gaming rig).
 
I am continually flummoxed how even the deep pockets of Apple's competitors can't seem to get them to put out an even mildly credible competitor for the *experience*.

It's become so laughable that Apple now enjoys such a head-start that the barrier to entry to this market is getting even higher.

Apple's formula is not rocket science. Their pockets are VERY deep, but not infinite and they didn't begin that way.

It is SUCH a challenge to get the right product, design, and leadership team together with the money to do great things. Only Apple has really made that happen across the board. Google has a good product in Android. Some other hardware platforms are good, too, but two "good" things put together aren't creating one GREAT thing.

Apple has GREAT software (that has its faults, for sure) and GREAT hardware, put together, they are making a PHENOMENAL product. Even if you don't like it, you can't deny its success.

It is really sad no one else has figured out the formula or how to execute on it.
 
You don't care about RAM, but when high res gaes start coming out or apps that have a higher memory footprint and try to keep multiple apps open, it DOES matter. It certainly is at least a consideration. Memory space is an absolute. It has very little to do with the OS but rather what a developer is able to DO with that memory space. If Apple has 1 GB instead of 512 MB, some developers would be more comfortable giving us a better user experience like high res graphics in games by taking up more memory footprint.

Plus, except for RAM, it's not like Apple also doesn't display their processor speed and core number. It's was the first thing they said when introducing the iPad 2.

Tony

But that is the platform they are working for. As a developer you see what you can and cannot do and then you adapt your software to the platform capability. Eventually the hardware will advance and the software will take advantage of it.

Just recently developer are trying to use the full capability of the iPhone, before that no one would have bother creating a game with the unreal engine for example.

The PS1 had 1MB VRAM, PS2 4MB VRAM and PS3 has 256MB VRAM BTW.

This argument about RAM to be extremely important is foul. And stop thinking PCs.


[*]Instant on - it's a spec (boot time)

I always considered the Istant On feature the fact that because it has an SSD I don't have to turn it off when I take it around with me, hence istant on - from sleep. I do the same with my MBA. Or is it just me?
 
Wow, Steve must feel very good about the iPad. Do you remember those post from last year about people complaining how bad the iPad is? It's so funny to read these comments again. :p

Wow. Eight people who guessed incorrectly on a new product makes YOU such a better person than them! Congratulations! You are such a winner by the fact that you bought a product that you had nothing at all to do with designing or anything else! That should make your family really proud.

Tony
 
You just do not get it. Every aspect of functionality is spec-ed BEFORE the design even begins. You are just talking about the narrowly defined spec as displayed next to the phone on the store shelf.

Numbers only matter to a certain point, but after that it's about what can you do with those numbers.

Here we have all the super mega giga android tables with all the horsepower barely few apps and crappy user (normal people) experience versus quite good numbers huge app collection and great user experience (again normal people).


There you have it. Design based on numbers and design based on user experience. Guess who is winning.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

28monkeys said:
"Back to your drawing board!" I said:rolleyes:

There's an app for that!
 
I am continually flummoxed how even the deep pockets of Apple's competitors can't seem to get them to put out an even mildly credible competitor for the *experience*.

It's become so laughable that Apple now enjoys such a head-start that the barrier to entry to this market is getting even higher.

Apple's formula is not rocket science. Their pockets are VERY deep, but not infinite and they didn't begin that way.

It is SUCH a challenge to get the right product, design, and leadership team together with the money to do great things. Only Apple has really made that happen across the board. Google has a good product in Android. Some other hardware platforms are good, too, but two "good" things put together aren't creating one GREAT thing.

Apple has GREAT software (that has its faults, for sure) and GREAT hardware, put together, they are making a PHENOMENAL product. Even if you don't like it, you can't deny its success.

It is really sad no one else has figured out the formula or how to execute on it.

Give me 60 billion and I'll figure it out:)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.