The iPad isn't supposed to replace your computer …it's supposed to replace your second computer.
I have no need to own both an iMac and a MacBook. It's overkill for my (and many others) couch surfing needs.
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.
Survey Sees Pent-Up iPad Demand, Some Cannibalization of Other Apple Products
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have no need to own both an iMac and a MacBook. It's overkill for my (and many others) couch surfing needs.
Well, then the guys who do not own the second computer are doomed i.e. no iPad for them)
Indeed, and those 13-year-olds are voicing their concerns loudly here in the forums.Well, then the guys who do not own the second computer are doomed i.e. no iPad for them)
People like myself who have a family and multiple computers are going to be the prime market. The iPad is going to make a great "1st computer" for a lot of kids.
Marketing blunder, not sure to what effect though. It's really 3 versions with a 3G option, 6 different SKUs, notwithstanding. Unfortunately Apple isn't marketing it that way.
Do not be confused. The 19% interested in this model are not among general public but among just 13% of it which are somewhat interested in buying iPad. This means that only 0.19 *0.13 * 100 = 2% of general public are somewhat interested in this model. These people already have a laptop (and a Lexus) so the price is not an issue for them
That would still be over 6 million iPads sold. Edit: in the first 4 quarters that the iPhone was for sale it sold 5,407,000 (according to Wikipedia). If the iPad does similar numbers in the first year I think that would be considered a great success.
Please, please, please, oh please let this go, you're doing my head in. Nothing on Apple.com and nothing in Steve's keynote has said that the iPad is designed to replace a computer. It's an additional 3rd device between a smart phone and a laptop.
It could well be the zone of suck, or it could be the zone of utopia. We won't know for a while now. But we do know that it's never been marketed as a replacement for your primary computer. Let's debate the iPad all we want, but let's stick to reality in the process.
Gee, Thanks Dad!
/sarcasm off
Why do you feel you can assess my needs/wants/desires?
I'm old enough and experienced enough to look at tech products and analyze my own use-cases, thank you.
It bothers me that 10% of respondents would delay an iPhone purchase for an iPad purchase. The whole benefit of the iPhone is "the internet in your pocket" everywhere you go. It's always with you. With an iPad, you are not going to take it EVERYWHERE you go. There will be times when you will NOT have the internet in your pocket.
I could understand a wealthy person purchasing a WiFi iPad for around the house after they already have an iPhone, but to get an iPad instead of an iPhone just seems like it is going to be a regretful decision. I don't think Apple wants customers that regret their Apple decision.
I could understand a wealthy person purchasing a WiFi iPad for around the house after they already have an iPhone, but to get an iPad instead of an iPhone just seems like it is going to be a regretful decision. I don't think Apple wants customers that regret their Apple decision.
Apple announces the iPad, despite all the tablets shown 3 weeks earlier, and for some reason it is breaking news all over the country. The 6 o'clock new, the 10pm news, Spanish news. I don't agree that most people don't even know that the ipad exists. It was mentioned everywhere, even on morning radio shows.
Many of us ARE in Apple's target market. We DO want this thing. The difference is that WE can understand why somebody wouldn't find such a device useful and we don't judge them by our own needs. So, I don't think you are an idiot, nor do I think you are lying to yourself about it.
I can't use an iPhone - only Verizon will work in my building. So, I have to carry a phone anyway. I do have wifi in my building, so I could carry an iPod Touch, but the screen is too small for it to be useful to me as a browser or any kind of media device. Even though it's easy to carry, I find I don't carry it because it's too small to be useful to me. For reading, movies, pictures, Powerpoints (Keynotes), and casual internet browsing, the iPad meets my needs. I wouldn't mind having an iPhone, but I'd still own an iPad because of the size.
Why does that bother you? Are you part of the iPhone product team and fear losing your job? Or do you just assume people are so incompetent they can't figure out what product best fits there lifestyle; that they don't have the cognitive ability to tell the difference between a 4.5" phone and a 9" iPad?
Apple has never mentioned the word "phone" in conjunction with the iPad, so perhaps people are thinking different and looking to buy the 3G version and using it w/ Skype.
Sure guys would need a Murse/briefcase/backpack to carry it but maybe these people already do that and a bigger screen overrides pocket-ability. Maybe there will be times when they won't have the iPad w/ them. I'm sure they are aware of their own circumstances. Not having the Internet w/ you 24/7 is not necessarily a bad thing.
I can spot advancements in technology when I see them. I can also spot redundant technologies that bring nothing new to the table when I see them.
Time to point out the obvious:
Telephone= no need to learn another "language" to relay messages.
Electric light= huge improvement in safety.
Car= improvement in speed.
Freezer= instant ice
CDs, I was actually never really sold on (at least music CDs). Casettes were, as you pointed out, about half the price of CDs, and I could record over them should I want to. CDs, while smaller, afforded no real gain when they came out, unless you wanted music that sounded better than your ears could hear. So contrary to what you may have thought, I might label this a "redundant technology," at least before consumers could burn their own. And of course, now that everything's digital, it doesn't matter.
The Apple ecosystem is part of the problem. If I had a netbook, I'm free to install what I want on it. And contrary to what some people here (who have likely never owned a netbook) seem to think, they aren't "crap." They're not "not good at anything," as the man in Cupertino seems to think. They're actually very viable machines that are more than capable of doing everything the iPad does, and more. Web browsing? Yes, with flash, in fact. Battery life? You can get 8-12 hours if you so desire. USB ports? Only on a netbook. Videos? Sure, which full-featured program do you want to use?
Also, take a look at the Archos lineup, particularly the Archos 5 and 7. You might see how the iPad is _not_ "more than a simple PMP."
All those technological improvements you can now, in retrospect, brilliantly say were "obvious" were not greeted with universal applause when they were first announced, much like the iPad. There were, in fact, lifeinhd-ers in those eras that denounced them -- wait for it -- as redundant technologies. Sorry guy. Maybe you should change your name to King Ludd, sovereign leader of the Luddites.
As and for CDs -- the were vastly superior to tape. Not only were they easier to store and had wider dynamic range, but also they did not deteriorate quickly like tapes, especially in hot cars, and constant play. You also didn't have to constantly clean the clogged heads of CD players b/c they didn't have heads. All the CDs I bought in the mid 80s still play like they did when I bought them. My tapes from the late 70s/early 80s all squeak now and are unusable. So redundant I think not. But evidence you are a poor one to judge what's good technology, perhaps.
Knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk statement that didn't really deserve a thoughtful response. The symmetry is appropriate.
I know none of us (well, not many of us) want to go down the comparing the iPad to a Laptop again as the iPas not supposed to be put against one.
But remember Steve's Words as the iPad's release:
He said, the iPad "Has to be better than a laptop" for the following tasks:
Browsing the web
Email
Viewing Photo's
Viewing Video's
Listening to music
Playing Games
Reading E Books.
Now, I can't REALLY say I could agree that the iPad will be better at all of these tasks, as Steve Jobs says it will be.
I suppose it depends how you define the word "better"
Different perhaps, but would a Laptop really be WORSE than the iPad at those tasks listed above?
35 seconds into his keynote speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhYxj2SvRI
But remember Steve's Words as the iPad's release:
He said, the iPad "Has to be better than a laptop" for the following tasks:
Browsing the web
Viewing Photo's
Viewing Video's
Listening to music
Playing Games
Reading E Books.
Now, I can't REALLY say I could agree that the iPad will be better at all of these tasks, as Steve Jobs says it will be.
I suppose it depends how you define the word "better"
Different perhaps, but would a Laptop really be WORSE than the iPad at those tasks listed above?
35 seconds into his keynote speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBhYxj2SvRI
I would say yes, a laptop is worse at those tasks -- except maybe email. Why? For the reason Jobs' stated: the iPad is more intimate. You get rid of the distance put between you and the screen by the keyboard. You get a more natural feel with multi-touch than using a mouse and key commands. You can become part of the actively by making natural movements or touching the screen.
Bottomline: the iPad lets you immerse yourself in what you are doing because you can hold it naturally and make inputs intuitively. That is why the iPhone became so popular. The iPad just extends its. Why is that so hard to understand?
Ok, I'll bite
I'd say a 1080p widescreen laptop with stereo speakers would be better in every way at watching a movie.
I'd say a Laptop with a dedicated graphics card would play games that the iPad can only dream of.
Music, well, anything can play an MP3 file (again, most laptops would have far better speakers than the iPad)
Browsing the web (Well, I have to say it...... All laptops will play back flash videos, animations and games)
Email... Well, Email is Email, but to be fair, Email requires you to type in text, and everyone would agree, no matter how fancy an on screen keyboard may look, a real keyboard (boring as it may be) is better at actually typing more than a few works on.
Viewing Photo's. Yeah, I'll give the iPad a point there. Despite the screen being very low res (by todays standards as it's the same res as an old 17" CRT monitor) it does handle Photo's in a quite pleasing to browse way.
Reading E Books, again, I'll give the iPad another point as it's more "book like" than a laptop and works nicer in portrait mode.
I'm trying to be fair in my thoughts above.
As I say, it all depends how you define the word "Better"
Are you really that sure that these people who are 'interested' in the iPad are making a mistake? Do these devices you name -- "... that have the same form factor as an iPad (tablet, not necessarily the same screen size though), but do everything the iPad does-- plus more-- better..." -- really do it better? How do you know? Have you tried them? If they really do it so well, why haven't they succeeded in over 10 years of trying? Or are you so caught up in the old "... a car is nothing more than transportation; you don't need all those fancy geegaws and horsepower or any of that stuff... " mindset that you can't see progress right in front of your nose?
And yes, there's netbooks; underpowered, undersized and underperforming copies of notebooks that are little better than the desktop computer of 1990! You have to put the thing down to use it, unless it just so happens to have a swivel/removable display to make it emulate a tablet, all using a modified version of Windows that merely uses the touch capabilities as a mouse, if it uses touch at all. You can't walk down the street and use it as any kind of a GPSenhanced or notwithout looking just plain dumb (if you could make it look like a book as you're using it, you could almost get away with it). And simply put, the netbook simply cannot do what most people bought them for. The tiny screen is hardly big enough for old-style web pages, much less the high-res screen-filling sites of today and honestly there are better and cheaper products if you're wanting to use them as DVD players (disregarding the fact that almost no netbooks carry an optical drive.) All in all, the netbook is a Volkswagen Beetle trying to compete with a Porsche Boxter. Even a Karmann Ghia would stand a better chance, but there aren't all that many Karmann Ghias in the netbook world.
The iPad's biggest advantage is that it's using an already well-established touch OS that now resides on something over 100 million iPhones and iPod Touch models, while Windows Tablet Edition might reside on some 50,000 PCs. It is able to compete in the same functional ballpark as netbooks and is both easier to use and more mobility oriented than the netbook.
No, grandpa. A car is not merely transportation. How you get there is just as important as the getting there itself. If what you say were true, we'd still be driving model-T Fords.
A little backwards here, aren't you? Let's start with your initial comparisons:
- Telephone= no need to learn another "language" to relay messages. But for the first 30 years were limited to only those Bell considered able to afford them, despite the clamour for the device to be available to anyone that could afford them. It took an act of congress before the phone was available to the everyday man. Before that, only rich people and rich companies owned any.
- Electric light= huge improvement in safety. Yet Edison himself insisted that DC current should be the standard for power transmission, requiring massive power plants no farther than a half-mile away to avoid current losses over long lines. His arch-rival, Nikola Tesla, proved that AC was safer and cheaper.
- Car= improvement in speed. Over the horse, yes; over the railroad?
- Freezer= instant ice Well, not instant, but you didn't have to wait for the iceman every two days. Of course, you did have to have electricity. There are some homes even today in America (and no, I'm not speaking of the Amish) who can't get electricity because they live in a single house down the end of a long road. The power company would never recoup the cost of stringing power down that road.
- CDs,(I snipped that long paragraph) Your error here was that CDs didn't have better sound, but rather worse sound due to the relatively low sampling rate. You lost the harmonics that made vinyl and tape sound so good, though at the same time you lost the crackle and hiss that were pretty much a standard of the analog formats. That latter item has been improved with higher sampling rates, but I think you'll notice that vinyl is making a resurgence.
However, the point is that while netbooks may serve a purpose for some people, 90% of the people I personally know who bought one discovered that while it was portable, they really couldn't use it for what they bought it fora mobile computing device that would let them play their Flash games, view DVDs and other simple tasks easily. The screens were too small for easy play or viewing and if they wanted to type something, the keyboards were usually too cramped and too unwieldy to use in a mobile setting. On the other hand, an iPad could do most of what a netbook can, easier and faster, and while it can't play Flash games, there is already a large library of graphical games available in the app store that make most Flash games look sick! You can't even find a decent driving or air combat sim in Flash, and with the motion sensing abilities of the iPad, you don't need a keyboard to play them.
The iPad is different, yes. In my opinion, the iPad goes where the netbook wanted to go. Successfully. I expect sales of netbooks will collapse just about as rapidly as they rosebeginning with a trickle, then falling with a torrent of scrap plastic into the recycle bins of the world.