Wall Street calls iPad a 'Grand Slam'


jayducharme

macrumors 68040
Jun 22, 2006
3,343
2,841
The thick of it
Shares of Apple dropped 2.89 percent, or $6.01 to 201.88 in morning trading.
Yeah, Wall Street seems really enthusiastic. :rolleyes:

"In our view, Steve Jobs and the Apple crew surpassed expectations with the long-anticipated unveiling of the tablet device," Brian Marshall of AmTech told clients.
Seriously? What Kool-Aid did he drink?

As the device is developed and expanded, I think it will eventually be great. This is an interesting first generation product, but it doesn't at all fit in to my lifestyle. When it can finally replace my laptop, I'll get it.

Something else I just thought of: the iPhone's appeal was that it could combine several devices into one (iPod, phone, browser/email). That made a lot of sense to me. But now Apple is asking me to buy a product that replicates functions of devices I already have. It seems a step backwards.
 

3goldens

macrumors 68000
Feb 26, 2008
1,774
91
yeah if you want to loose money its down $10

it always happens after apple introduces something
 

nate22195

macrumors newbie
Jan 15, 2008
14
0
Los Angeles
Stock

Apple stocks have historically dropped immediately following a large announcement, especially like the iPad. If you look at the trends leading up to every large announcement Apple has had over the past couple of years, the stock prices tend to rise, a lot, leading up to new product announcements. They will fall and re-correct themselves after a couple of weeks. It is one of the reasons why Apple has seen so much stock success. People always point out how bad it looks because Apple stock drops the next day, but its just called "selling the news".
 

alywa

macrumors 6502
May 6, 2004
350
0
Yeah, Wall Street seems really enthusiastic. :rolleyes:



Seriously? What Kool-Aid did he drink?

When it can finally replace my laptop, I'll get it.
I think that's the key. We're not the target demographic. For many, many people this will replace their laptop.

I have a 27" imac at home, an elderly 20" at work, and an iPhone. If I got a laptop, it would be for web, video, photos (especially while traveling), and other light uses. I currently use my iPhone for many of those things. I've gotten used to the web on the small screen. With the iPad, any thoughts of getting a laptop are completely gone for me... I'd simply get the iPad instead. Not to mention, I'd never dream of getting a Kindle or Nook now with the iPad available.

Will I get one... probably. Do I need one? No. But it seriously removes any thoughts of a laptop or e-reader I may have had.
 

Yixian

macrumors 65816
Jun 2, 2007
1,475
119
Europe
Apple stocks have historically dropped immediately following a large announcement, especially like the iPad. If you look at the trends leading up to every large announcement Apple has had over the past couple of years, the stock prices tend to rise, a lot, leading up to new product announcements. They will fall and re-correct themselves after a couple of weeks. It is one of the reasons why Apple has seen so much stock success. People always point out how bad it looks because Apple stock drops the next day, but its just called "selling the news".
Exactly, the point is the stocks never drop to below the level they were at before the hype began, they drop to the point they were somewhere mid-way through the hype build up, meaning cumulatively Apple stocks constantly rise.

This is particularly true with their products lately, the iPhone and App Store were slow burner successes, starting out with high publicity but fairly average sales, building up and up with each Rev until you have a massive market.

This is even more true with the iPad, which, whilst spot on in everything it does do, is probably not quite as "revolutionary" as we have come to expect new Apple products to be. Apple probably knows this and is attempting to off-set any anti-climax factor with the low price.

But rest assured, this product is most definitely a grand slam, Apple have done everything they needed to do, the only reason it may seem a bit anti-climatic right now is because they launched without any particularly special apps and few publishers. Likewise, iTunes, which will almost certainly have to see a new major release before launch, was not fully fleshed out.

Apps will make this product like they made the iPhone and iPod Touch, and it's in the right price range, certainly after a probably price drop for xmas, to be a similarly sized success...

... With the right marketing.





Just disappointed a tht elack of a stylus really, that's all.
 

jrbdmb

macrumors 6502
May 19, 2008
453
47
USA
No support for Flash, no multi-tasking capability. Separate hard keyboard required.

IMHO, *not* a netbook killer, and not a grand slam. Just an Touch on steroids.
 

Yixian

macrumors 65816
Jun 2, 2007
1,475
119
Europe
No support for Flash, no multi-tasking capability. Separate hard keyboard required.

IMHO, *not* a netbook killer, and not a grand slam. Just an Touch on steroids.
Flash is the past, anyone doing enough typing on a netbook to require a keyboard is going beyond what they really for, but yeah, no multi-tasking is a disappointment...

Maybe in OS 4.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
Yeah, Wall Street seems really enthusiastic. :rolleyes:



Seriously? What Kool-Aid did he drink?

As the device is developed and expanded, I think it will eventually be great. This is an interesting first generation product, but it doesn't at all fit in to my lifestyle. When it can finally replace my laptop, I'll get it.

Something else I just thought of: the iPhone's appeal was that it could combine several devices into one (iPod, phone, browser/email). That made a lot of sense to me. But now Apple is asking me to buy a product that replicates functions of devices I already have. It seems a step backwards.
The whole market is down today. AAPL received two upgrades today.

This product will never replace a laptop. How anyone could think it would defies everything I've ever learned in my 30 year marketing career.

Apple makes products for the masses, not a bunch of geeks on a message board with expectations that are laughable.
 

jayducharme

macrumors 68040
Jun 22, 2006
3,343
2,841
The thick of it
Apple makes products for the masses, not a bunch of geeks on a message board with expectations that are laughable.
True, to an extent. Maybe they don't want to cut into their own laptop sales, but if the device had more functionality I'd be all over it. I'd sell my laptop and get one. But right now it just seems redundant to me.

I can see its appeal for people who were on the fence about the Kindle. And I can see its appeal for people who don't want an iPhone or Touch, and have a desktop computer at home. I guess I just wanted to want this product, and right now I don't.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
For perspective on this device, Google “thread 500” or try one yourself :)

I think Gruber made a good analogy today: traditional computers will be like manual transmissions one day. Enthusiasts will buy them, but most people will be driving touch-based tablets that offer speed and ease rather than fine custom control.

This will be SO much better than a netbook for most of what people actually DO.
 

gdieter

macrumors member
Nov 21, 2007
44
0
SoCal
For perspective on this device, Google “thread 500” or try one yourself :)

I think Gruber made a good analogy today: traditional computers will be like manual transmissions one day. Enthusiasts will buy them, but most people will be driving touch-based tablets that offer speed and ease rather than fine custom control.

This will be SO much better than a netbook for most of what people actually DO.
Definitely going to be an improvement over my netbook when I'm sitting on the couch watching basketball and want to check something on the web.

I love how some folks lament that is just a big ipod touch and doesn't even have a phone. Seriously, who was going to rely on this to make calls?
 

bretm

macrumors 68000
Apr 12, 2002
1,951
27
I think that's the key. We're not the target demographic. For many, many people this will replace their laptop.

I have a 27" imac at home, an elderly 20" at work, and an iPhone. If I got a laptop, it would be for web, video, photos (especially while traveling), and other light uses. I currently use my iPhone for many of those things. I've gotten used to the web on the small screen. With the iPad, any thoughts of getting a laptop are completely gone for me... I'd simply get the iPad instead. Not to mention, I'd never dream of getting a Kindle or Nook now with the iPad available.

Will I get one... probably. Do I need one? No. But it seriously removes any thoughts of a laptop or e-reader I may have had.
I think the idea is that it's a new category that fits into everyones life. It isn't supposed to replace anyones anything. That would cannibalize sales. If it's not going to grow a market, you're competing with your self.

Tell me, did you NEED that new HD LCD TV you bought? I'll bet your old YV was just fine. Americans will buy cool, fun, entertaining tech. Blue Ray discs and players. Expensive Tivos. Nobody needs any of it. Why is everyone questioning what it is and what it's for? Looks to
me like it does a he'll of a lot of cool stuff for a great price. It'll sell. I've got a damn tv in every room. My grandparents had one. Why should we have just a laptop and a phone for the Internet or media. I think Steve is really onto something we couldn't put our finger on before. We do all this cool stuff on WORK devices. Phones, computers, laptops. Why not have a light, portable little device for the Internet and other media? At my house were slowly collecting laptops and they lay around, just getting picked up to do facebook or check email while watching TV. Now my iPhone fills that bill, butnits kinda small. People are having trouble figuring out what this is or is for. It's for anyone that wants another complimentary Internet device lying around. That's it. That simple. And, it's cheap and cooler than the other boring netbook options.
 

bretm

macrumors 68000
Apr 12, 2002
1,951
27
True, to an extent. Maybe they don't want to cut into their own laptop sales, but if the device had more functionality I'd be all over it. I'd sell my laptop and get one. But right now it just seems redundant to me.

I can see its appeal for people who were on the fence about the Kindle. And I can see its appeal for people who don't want an iPhone or Touch, and have a desktop computer at home. I guess I just wanted to want this product, and right now I don't.
Yep. Completely redundant. My TV analogy again. All across the country people have perfectly good TVs all over their house. They are replacing them with expensive LCD HD TVs for no other reason than they're better than the old one. Or they need another TV in the basement or the guest room. Most homes have maybe a laptop and a desktop or even just a laptop. This thing is the new TV. A consumable device that is SIMPLE, understandable, convenient and cool. They should be laying all over the house. I have an awesome Mac Pro, a
MacBook, and old iBook, and an iPhone. So what am I doing right now? Watching TV and typing this on
my iPhone with a laptop next to me. The laptop might be better, but the phone is more convenient and light. I don't have to fold it up and set it down to get up for a drink. The ipad looks like it fits the void between. And for kids and students and grandmas and travelers, etc it works even better.
 

johnnyjibbs

macrumors 68030
Sep 18, 2003
2,958
119
London, UK
For many, many people this will replace their laptop.
You're right in that, despite its very limiting feature set and expandability, it will 99% of what most people do on a laptop.

Except it is not intended to be a 'computer' (in this context, I'm saying that an iPhone is not a computer even though it obviously is). I mean, isn't it kind of odd that you need to have a proper computer to sync this with - you can't buy it instead of a computer because you need a Mac or PC to put stuff onto it. Therefore it is a supplement to a computer - it is a device like an iPod or iPhone in that respect - not a replacement.

This is how Apple differs from everyone else in their vision of the tablet. Everyone else has taken a standard PC, removed the keyboard and put touch on it. The problem with that is that your hand has to travel far greater distances than using a mouse to accomplish the same task (you're still using the same Windows software with a couple of add-ons to enable touch) and there are few benefits to using the virtual keyboard instead of a real one.

Apple has recognised that, rather than a replacement for a computer, this is a device that shouldn't even be thought of as a computer. Its primary purpose for being is to consumer media, not create it. Yes, you can write documents and letters on it and play around with a spreadsheet but, like the iPhone, you cannot make music, edit photos (other than in a basic way), etc. Instead it is designed for listening to music, reading books, viewing photos and presentations, etc. It is all of these things - an ebook reader, an iPod, a digital photo frame, a video player, but with added stuff like web browsing and email.

Apple execs made great play of the intimacy of the device. In their eyes, the concept of this is that the device doesn't get in the way. You don't have to power it up, just press a couple of taps and you're straight into writing a quick email or something like that. Even Jony Ive said something along those lines - that nothing comes between you and the content.

Of course, there are some severe limitations with the device and I'm not convinced this will have mass market appeal. Is it revolutionary? Not really, it's an evolution of the iPhone. Except it can't do as much as the iPhone. In fact, it trades portability (in your pocket) for a bigger screen. And it doesn't really tangibly do anything more or anything better than your iPhone or computer. But I think they are trying to convey the 'tangibleness' of it - that rather than having a list or a window of contacts, you have a virtual contact book. That you pick it up and it's like holding the real thing. There's no doubting this is a nice device.

Whether people 'need' this kind of thing will be another matter.

It's a pity about the 4:3 aspect ratio of the screen, the locked in nature of the OS and therefore non-expandability, no camera, no landscape dock connector, no HD TV output with sound. I was also expecting far more from the content side of things, although maybe there's more to come.

Time will tell if it really turns out to be a major success, but I'm already finding that I'm trying to convince myself I need this device for my new home... :cool:
 

Evangelion

macrumors 68040
Jan 10, 2005
3,314
5
No support for Flash, no multi-tasking capability. Separate hard keyboard required.

IMHO, *not* a netbook killer, and not a grand slam. Just an Touch on steroids.
Anyone who claims that the iPad is "just an touch on steroids" have zero clue what they are talking about.

Normally I don't prostitute my blog to others, but I have written two huge blog-posts about the iPad which illustrates what I think about this:

http://thelazysavior.blogspot.com/2010/01/its-experience-not-specs.html

http://thelazysavior.blogspot.com/2010/01/ipad-part-2.html

In short: you can't determine the usefullness of the iPad by staring at a bunch of specs on paper, you need to try it out yourself. Just about everyone who has actually used it tell how different it is from iPod touch and a notebook, and how it could change things. All the nay-saysers are people who have just seen few pictures and some specs.

EDIT: Also, it seems to me that you guys are simply staring at what different things you can do with the iPad (or notebook), but you don't pay any attention on HOW you do those things. iPad might do less, but the things it does, it does better.
 

smiddlehurst

macrumors 65816
Jun 5, 2007
1,226
22
I mean, isn't it kind of odd that you need to have a proper computer to sync this with - you can't buy it instead of a computer because you need a Mac or PC to put stuff onto it. Therefore it is a supplement to a computer - it is a device like an iPod or iPhone in that respect - not a replacement.
Actually, I was thinking about that and it's not quite accurate. It's got iTunes built in and you can certainly download directly to the device. Apps can be bought and installed straight from the app store. Photographs can be brought in straight from a camera with the optional add-on thingy. Documents can be created and saved on the device with iWorks.

Don't get me wrong, having a PC / Mac behind this thing is a big benefit and makes it easier to manage music / movies / pictures etc. But it's not actually REQUIRED. The biggest problem I can see is you will need one to upgrade the OS which is a bit of a git but I can see them building that into the iTunes app before too much longer.
 

smiddlehurst

macrumors 65816
Jun 5, 2007
1,226
22
No support for Flash, no multi-tasking capability. Separate hard keyboard required.

IMHO, *not* a netbook killer, and not a grand slam. Just an Touch on steroids.
Sorry, I just wanted to pick up on the multi-tasking bit with a couple of thoughts:

1) It DOES have multitasking, just not user-configurable. First party apps can multi-task, third party ones can't. The Music app is the obvious example here.

2) Does it need multi-tasking? No, wait, hear me out. It's a 10" screen so you're only going to have one app running full-screen at a time anyway. Most iPhone apps remember their state when you hit the home button. So how would multitasking in the traditional sense really differ from looking something up in Safari and copying an image, hitting home, tapping Keynote, pasting the image in, writing something, hitting home, tapping Safari to go back to where you were etc?
 

Ragnar

macrumors member
Jan 3, 2009
55
0
Guambodia
Sorry, I just wanted to pick up on the multi-tasking bit with a couple of thoughts:

1) It DOES have multitasking, just not user-configurable. First party apps can multi-task, third party ones can't. The Music app is the obvious example here.

Huh?.....so you can listen to itunes and read at the same time? When I'm traveling around I have to block out all the idiots with white noise while reading. If it can't do that it's not even a viable replacement for a book never mind netbook.
 

smiddlehurst

macrumors 65816
Jun 5, 2007
1,226
22
Huh?.....so you can listen to itunes and read at the same time? When I'm traveling around I have to block out all the idiots with white noise while reading. If it can't do that it's not even a viable replacement for a book never mind netbook.
*sigh* Yes, but that also extends to other areas of the OS as well, push notifications, e-mail application, even Safari stays running (doesn't do much but it does stay open). The point is some people are saying that it's a single app at a time, that's not entirely accurate. Hell I've even some particularly cunning trolls / stupid people say it can't play music and do anything else at the same time so I do think there's a need to clarify that. The bulk of my point was in the second half though: can someone explain why there's such a need for multitasking considering the current system on the iPhone OS works so very well in reality even if you don't have more than one app technically open at a time?
 

mdurwin

macrumors newbie
Dec 29, 2009
6
0
Time to buy Apple stocks.
Yeah, right before the meeting was the time to sell. Apple stock was at $208 the day before the announcement, it plummeted to $199 the next day and is now at $197.

Of course the New York Times says the iPad is a grand slam, but don't you think saying that is a conflict of interest? They have a NYT app and were featured prominently (with broken Flash icons and all) in the presentation.

If the iPad had offered a single platform for publishers, much as the iPod app is for music and videos and iBookStore will be for books, along with a single purchase, or subscription plan, it would have been a game changer. Especially if publishers could have been given a very simple web-based or desktop app to upload content. It would have saved them a fortune, allowed them to post immediate news, a la Twitter and include multi-media. It didn't though. Instead it allowed publishers to spend a ton of cash developing their own applications.