Engadget loves to ride Apples dick and even they're having a hard time liking it.@ cats doing everything in their power to justify why the iPad is not good. I have a solution... don't buy it..
Official Apple Tablet (general tablet market) thread. Constantly updated
- Thread starter Spectrum
- Start date
@devine cheerleading
once again, Apple has not marketed this product. there are no ads (tv or print) for this device. it was presented today. Jobs showed off the hardware and the software. how people will use it and which people will buy it has all been speculated by the media and public.
right now the product is geared more towards a media device as opposed to a laptop. with OS 4 and a slew of apps, that will change. all apple is doing is creating a hybrid platform that appeals to content creators and content consumers. this app has added another component to the iTunes store which in turns pushes product. the full capabilities of the device will be tied to the new OS and the new apps developed specifically for it.
give it time. soon come…
did he jailbreak his own product?
that's the iwood realize background
meanwhile bill gates is out clubbing
NO YOU MAY NOT SPEAK C.P. SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I know I'm too late for all the disappointing comments to really make a difference in anyone's opinions, but it's quite simple to see why Jobs and the Apple crew didn't place some of the hardware and software that we wanted to see go into this "all-in-one" product. I'll break it down:
1. COST: Probably the most important but left out mentioned topics of discussion in this thread. In order for them to keep it anywhere near under $1000 they had to skimp on things that we would have loved to see in the 1st gen of the iPad. A webcam/camera, HDMI connector, sd card slot, mutliple USB ports, AND a larger GB STEADY STATE DRIVE would have caused the price to go well over $1000.
Keep in mind that the most expensive one with 3g is $829, so it's clear to see that with those added hardware features it would have hit the $1000 mark pretty easy and real fast.
2. GOAL: Their objective is to get this new product in as many hands as possible, meaning people of all ages, socio-economic backgrounds, and interests. They wanted this thing to appeal to everyone, not just the tech-head like me and you who wanted a true all-in-one device. Apple is good at keeping it simple and elegant. That's exactly what they did. They practically dumbed down the laptop and netbook.
By providing it at the base price of $499, people that were in a dilemma of buying a netbook and/or a kindle can now have a little bit of both with some added meat, people that wanted a portable dvd player now have something more, and people that wanted to buy an iPhone but couldn't justify paying for another phone or mp3 player can now have this.
Plus they are trying to get away from the stigma of being the pseudo counter culture assholes that design shiny shit that is overpriced (in a way
).
3. SOFTWARE: Like mentioned a few other times in this thread, Apple will be coming out with O.S. 4.0 and a new iPhone. I'm sure they have more up their sleeves than what they are showing at this presentation.
They didn't use Flash because it's STILL a resource hog and a security liability...any good programmer worth their weight in gold can tell you this.
Battery life is obviously important to them so they didn't want an OS like OSX that would multitask and deplete battery life and storage capacity. Why they couldn't just make a slimmed down version of OSX and call it a day is anybodies guess, but they MIGHT (Big might that can easily replaced with a HOPEFULLY) still do it.
Oh, and all I have to say in addition to what I stated about software is APPLE DEVELOPMENT TEAM!!
(those who jailbreak know what I mean 
)
I will be the 1st to say that my expectations exceeded this product since I wanted a front facing webcam, built in usb, sd, hdmi, and firewire slots, at least a 120 GB hard drive, comparable operating system to OSX, multitasking without jailbreak and a damn stylus so I could actually write on the damn thing if I wanted to.
However, I see where they are coming from...
NOW YOU MAY SPEAK FREELY GENERAL...
I know I'm too late for all the disappointing comments to really make a difference in anyone's opinions, but it's quite simple to see why Jobs and the Apple crew didn't place some of the hardware and software that we wanted to see go into this "all-in-one" product. I'll break it down:
1. COST: Probably the most important but left out mentioned topics of discussion in this thread. In order for them to keep it anywhere near under $1000 they had to skimp on things that we would have loved to see in the 1st gen of the iPad. A webcam/camera, HDMI connector, sd card slot, mutliple USB ports, AND a larger GB STEADY STATE DRIVE would have caused the price to go well over $1000.
Keep in mind that the most expensive one with 3g is $829, so it's clear to see that with those added hardware features it would have hit the $1000 mark pretty easy and real fast.
2. GOAL: Their objective is to get this new product in as many hands as possible, meaning people of all ages, socio-economic backgrounds, and interests. They wanted this thing to appeal to everyone, not just the tech-head like me and you who wanted a true all-in-one device. Apple is good at keeping it simple and elegant. That's exactly what they did. They practically dumbed down the laptop and netbook.
By providing it at the base price of $499, people that were in a dilemma of buying a netbook and/or a kindle can now have a little bit of both with some added meat, people that wanted a portable dvd player now have something more, and people that wanted to buy an iPhone but couldn't justify paying for another phone or mp3 player can now have this.
Plus they are trying to get away from the stigma of being the pseudo counter culture assholes that design shiny shit that is overpriced (in a way
).3. SOFTWARE: Like mentioned a few other times in this thread, Apple will be coming out with O.S. 4.0 and a new iPhone. I'm sure they have more up their sleeves than what they are showing at this presentation.
They didn't use Flash because it's STILL a resource hog and a security liability...any good programmer worth their weight in gold can tell you this.
Battery life is obviously important to them so they didn't want an OS like OSX that would multitask and deplete battery life and storage capacity. Why they couldn't just make a slimmed down version of OSX and call it a day is anybodies guess, but they MIGHT (Big might that can easily replaced with a HOPEFULLY) still do it.
Oh, and all I have to say in addition to what I stated about software is APPLE DEVELOPMENT TEAM!!
(those who jailbreak know what I mean )I will be the 1st to say that my expectations exceeded this product since I wanted a front facing webcam, built in usb, sd, hdmi, and firewire slots, at least a 120 GB hard drive, comparable operating system to OSX, multitasking without jailbreak and a damn stylus so I could actually write on the damn thing if I wanted to.
However, I see where they are coming from...
NOW YOU MAY SPEAK FREELY GENERAL...
Last edited:
oh yeah, the iPad is nice...IT'S ALL ABOUT APPLE..
I will be the 1st to say that my expectations exceeded this product since I wanted a front facing webcam, built in usb, sd, hdmi, and firewire slots, at least a 120 GB hard drive, comparable operating system to OSX, multitasking without jailbreak and a damn stylus so I could actually write on the damn thing if I wanted to.
Nothing you mentioned, other than the 120GB SSD, would have added significantly to the cost. This is, as always, about future upgrades and dollars. Take the missing SD card slot. They left it out so you can not increase the memory of your own device...period. If it had an SD slot, everyone would just buy the 16GB joint and throw in their own inexpensive memory. Oh no, Apple can't have that. You have to pay A PREMIUM for the basic privilege of more memory. I understand corporate greed. But nickel and diming like that...damn.
Admittedly, I'm not an avid user of Apple products (other than iPod), so I'm not the target audience. But I really wanted to get this joint. But like you said, they didn't meet my expectations and as much as fanboys trumpet true innovation, I know it didn't meet theirs either. So once again they will settle until Apple deems them ready for more. Fuck that.
Meet my expectations or kick rocks.
Which was originally stolen from borders.com. No big deal.
THIS IS NOT A TABLET PC. In fact, it's not a PC period.
Apple is clearly not trying to make a tablet PC. This isn't a laptop replacement. Or Desktop replacement. Or Apple TV replacement.
It's a book, magazine, portable DVD replacement.
You can get a MacBook for $1000 that does everything people in here are complaining about. They are two separate things.
This thing is for someone that may be in their living room and want to be able to view their media, their content, quickly and easily without having to go over to their desktop or lugging a laptop around everywhere.
It gives you a little bit of productivity but really it's a digital lifestyle device. Email, web, book, magazines, movies.
Apple is clearly not trying to make a tablet PC. This isn't a laptop replacement. Or Desktop replacement. Or Apple TV replacement.
It's a book, magazine, portable DVD replacement.
You can get a MacBook for $1000 that does everything people in here are complaining about. They are two separate things.
This thing is for someone that may be in their living room and want to be able to view their media, their content, quickly and easily without having to go over to their desktop or lugging a laptop around everywhere.
It gives you a little bit of productivity but really it's a digital lifestyle device. Email, web, book, magazines, movies.
So you are going to be able to get Internet anywhere?...Unlike for the Ipod Touch...
Yes if you get the 3G version and sign up for a AT&T data plan
Every single feature that is missing will be added to future versions of the product. You buy this one; I'll wait for those.
Why would apple cannibalize their own MacBook?
They want you to get an iPad and a MacBook. If they add all that shit, there would be no use for a MacBook.
check this out..
link
Apple lifts VoIP over cellular restrictions in new iPhone SDK
from Engadget by Paul Miller
51 people liked this
Great news for the VoIP world: iCall, the maker of the iCall VoIP iPhone app that can catch a GSM call and flip it over to WiFi, has issued a press release saying that the new iPhone SDK allows for VoIP over 3G cellular connections. Previously such calls had to be made over WiFi, since AT&T's network (or someone well acquainted with AT&T's network) didn't think it was man enough to take the VoIP traffic. Interestingly, iCall says its 3G-friendly VoIP app is available now, and is the first and only such app in the App Store -- which seems like some pretty quick turnaround on everyone's part, but apparently the 3G restriction wasn't anything to do with the software itself, but instead a server-side block. We just tested this out and it totally works, and while we'll be looking for more verification that the ban has indeed been lifted, it sounds like it's time for some cheaply connected international parties in the streets.
W/O keyboard and full OS it won't compete with MacBook. They will add more features.
the trend is to move away from CDs and DVDs and just download or stream your content.
if you have content on another drive you want to put on it, you can add it either thru iTunes or 3rd party app.
got ya. so you CAN connect an external HD to it?
yes, via an adapter.
SO one will be able to make calls with the iPad.
Bingo! The CBR reader, will be great for any device(iPad,Slate,etc.) If done right, it can bring the comic book scene to the next level. That is one more thing I hate about Disney buying Marvel, cause of Disney owns Pixar and a onslaught of just about every type of media, will they allow every company access to their catalogs, or go the route of only allowing Apple to the cream of the crop. If they are smart, Disney will share with everyone, more bucks for them to be on every device instead of one or two.
Condé Nast and Time Inc. Cheer iPad; Others Have Doubts
No tablet-ready magazines were unveiled at Apple’s event on Wednesday, but Sarah Chubb, president of Condé Nast Digital, said that did not concern her.
“They didn’t approach us,” she said. “My guess is, there was no way in three weeks that we could imagine and create something that would be kind of stunning visually,” she said, referring to the time frame the featured developers had to create apps.
“We have a great relationship with them — I’m not sorry, nor do I feel dissed in this,” she said.
She and other publishing executives are cheering about the iPad, but it is not getting a full standing ovation.
Ms. Chubb said Condé Nast plans to have some magazines tablet-ready when the iPad ships — at least a version of the GQ iPhone app, but at best full iPad versions of multiple magazines. Ms. Chubb declined to specify what magazines would first make the jump, but said that Vanity Fair, Wired and GQ are likely candidates.
She said she envisions the apps as readers for each particular magazine, which will pull the new issues once they are available. Some of the features she saw at the press conference interested her, like “touch-screen functionality — that you could tap in a certain way, and all of a sudden the image would have four boxes, not one.”
There were, noticeably, no magazines featured during today’s demonstration and, indeed, few publishers had access to the iPad before launch. “We’ve actually been working on, without knowledge beforehand, unlike The New York Times, we started working on the conceptual work around what kind of optimization would you do weeks ago, because we felt the rumors had hit such a pitch that they were pretty close to true, and if there was product shipping this spring we wanted to be ready,” Ms. Chubb said.
One sticking point for publishers has been whether they will have direct access to customer data, which they would use to sell renewals or related magazines and to tell their advertisers about their audience. (That is one reason why major publishers joined a consortium, announced in December, that would offer a storefront for digital magazines.)
Ms. Chubb said that Apple had not addressed that at the press conference, but that some Condé Nast executives were talking with Apple about the issue and the company seemed somewhat amenable. In the meantime, she said, she was more than happy to sell through the apps store.
“We also don’t get the consumer information in a typical newsstand sale, so part of why I’ve been thinking conceptually about this is, out of the gate, we think of it as a newsstand buyer,” she said. “We’ll be thinking of a lot of different ways you, as a buyer, might buy from us, and it might be a bundle with print, it might be a registration.
“There’s a huge virtue to the Apple store, iTunes, in that it’s so friction free it makes people buy things,” she said.
Application developers generally receive 70 percent of revenue from iPhone apps, while Apple keeps 30 percent. Apple did not address terms on Wednesday, Ms. Chubb said, so “I would imagine it’s sticking.”
The companies will also pull in revenue from advertisers through the iPad. Condé Nast has gotten its GQ iPhone app approved by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. That means each copy sold digitally counts in the same way as a newsstand copy, and is included in its guaranteed circulation. It plans to do the same with iPad copies. That means if the iPad and iPhone apps take off, Condé Nast could charge advertisers more for each ad page. Digital pages are, of course, cheaper to produce than paper-and-ink ones, but Ms. Chubb said the interactive ability for digital pages added allure.
“We believe that business model will evolve over time as the mix of digital becomes greater,” she said.
Time Inc. executives, too, were enthusiastic about the introduction.
“It was great and it was great for us. When we developed the SI touch tablet prototype, it was designed for something very close to what we saw from Apple today,” Terry McDonell, editor of Sports Illustrated Group, which had created a tablet mockup, said in an e-mail message.
Dawn Bridges, a spokeswoman for the company, said in an e-mail message that Time Inc. was preparing tablet editions of all of its United States titles.
But some executives did not see as much potential for old media on the iPad.
Christian Hendricks, the vice president for interactive media at McClatchy, which publishes newspapers like The Miami Herald and The Kansas City Star, said that while the company was interested in putting its content on the iPad and other e-reader devices, “we certainly don’t view it as game-changing” in the near term.
“The truth is these devices are expensive, they tend to go to the high-end market, they tend to be driven by books, and we haven’t seen tremendous interest as far as demand for newspaper subscriptions on it,” Mr. Hendricks said.
And Aaron Shapiro, a partner at Huge, a Brooklyn digital agency that designs Web sites and mobile content for companies like NBC and Thomson Reuters, said he had doubts about the iPad’s impact on publishers of magazines and newspapers.
“This is not going to be the panacea that publishers are hoping for to save their business,” he said. “Consumers have an expectation that content is going to be free, and it’s unlikely that a new form factor is going to motivate consumers to pay for publications and newspapers they get online for free.”
Just like blogs shook up the online world, and the mobile landscape was changed by games and geographically-specific applications, he said he expects a brand-new approach to win in the tablet space.
“If history’s any indication,” he said, “it’ll come from the next great start-up, as opposed to a big media company trying to repurpose content.”
No tablet-ready magazines were unveiled at Apple’s event on Wednesday, but Sarah Chubb, president of Condé Nast Digital, said that did not concern her.
“They didn’t approach us,” she said. “My guess is, there was no way in three weeks that we could imagine and create something that would be kind of stunning visually,” she said, referring to the time frame the featured developers had to create apps.
“We have a great relationship with them — I’m not sorry, nor do I feel dissed in this,” she said.
She and other publishing executives are cheering about the iPad, but it is not getting a full standing ovation.
Ms. Chubb said Condé Nast plans to have some magazines tablet-ready when the iPad ships — at least a version of the GQ iPhone app, but at best full iPad versions of multiple magazines. Ms. Chubb declined to specify what magazines would first make the jump, but said that Vanity Fair, Wired and GQ are likely candidates.
She said she envisions the apps as readers for each particular magazine, which will pull the new issues once they are available. Some of the features she saw at the press conference interested her, like “touch-screen functionality — that you could tap in a certain way, and all of a sudden the image would have four boxes, not one.”
There were, noticeably, no magazines featured during today’s demonstration and, indeed, few publishers had access to the iPad before launch. “We’ve actually been working on, without knowledge beforehand, unlike The New York Times, we started working on the conceptual work around what kind of optimization would you do weeks ago, because we felt the rumors had hit such a pitch that they were pretty close to true, and if there was product shipping this spring we wanted to be ready,” Ms. Chubb said.
One sticking point for publishers has been whether they will have direct access to customer data, which they would use to sell renewals or related magazines and to tell their advertisers about their audience. (That is one reason why major publishers joined a consortium, announced in December, that would offer a storefront for digital magazines.)
Ms. Chubb said that Apple had not addressed that at the press conference, but that some Condé Nast executives were talking with Apple about the issue and the company seemed somewhat amenable. In the meantime, she said, she was more than happy to sell through the apps store.
“We also don’t get the consumer information in a typical newsstand sale, so part of why I’ve been thinking conceptually about this is, out of the gate, we think of it as a newsstand buyer,” she said. “We’ll be thinking of a lot of different ways you, as a buyer, might buy from us, and it might be a bundle with print, it might be a registration.
“There’s a huge virtue to the Apple store, iTunes, in that it’s so friction free it makes people buy things,” she said.
Application developers generally receive 70 percent of revenue from iPhone apps, while Apple keeps 30 percent. Apple did not address terms on Wednesday, Ms. Chubb said, so “I would imagine it’s sticking.”
The companies will also pull in revenue from advertisers through the iPad. Condé Nast has gotten its GQ iPhone app approved by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. That means each copy sold digitally counts in the same way as a newsstand copy, and is included in its guaranteed circulation. It plans to do the same with iPad copies. That means if the iPad and iPhone apps take off, Condé Nast could charge advertisers more for each ad page. Digital pages are, of course, cheaper to produce than paper-and-ink ones, but Ms. Chubb said the interactive ability for digital pages added allure.
“We believe that business model will evolve over time as the mix of digital becomes greater,” she said.
Time Inc. executives, too, were enthusiastic about the introduction.
“It was great and it was great for us. When we developed the SI touch tablet prototype, it was designed for something very close to what we saw from Apple today,” Terry McDonell, editor of Sports Illustrated Group, which had created a tablet mockup, said in an e-mail message.
Dawn Bridges, a spokeswoman for the company, said in an e-mail message that Time Inc. was preparing tablet editions of all of its United States titles.
But some executives did not see as much potential for old media on the iPad.
Christian Hendricks, the vice president for interactive media at McClatchy, which publishes newspapers like The Miami Herald and The Kansas City Star, said that while the company was interested in putting its content on the iPad and other e-reader devices, “we certainly don’t view it as game-changing” in the near term.
“The truth is these devices are expensive, they tend to go to the high-end market, they tend to be driven by books, and we haven’t seen tremendous interest as far as demand for newspaper subscriptions on it,” Mr. Hendricks said.
And Aaron Shapiro, a partner at Huge, a Brooklyn digital agency that designs Web sites and mobile content for companies like NBC and Thomson Reuters, said he had doubts about the iPad’s impact on publishers of magazines and newspapers.
“This is not going to be the panacea that publishers are hoping for to save their business,” he said. “Consumers have an expectation that content is going to be free, and it’s unlikely that a new form factor is going to motivate consumers to pay for publications and newspapers they get online for free.”
Just like blogs shook up the online world, and the mobile landscape was changed by games and geographically-specific applications, he said he expects a brand-new approach to win in the tablet space.
“If history’s any indication,” he said, “it’ll come from the next great start-up, as opposed to a big media company trying to repurpose content.”
Top 10 Reasons The Apple iPad Will Put Amazon’s Kindle Out of Business
from TechCrunch by Guest Author
6 people liked this
Editor’s note: Ever since yesterday’s debut of Apple’s iPad, the debate has been raging about what it means for Amazon’s Kindle. Will it kill it? Will it not? Is comparing the two like comparing a computer to a typewriter? To add fuel to the fire and, well, because we love top 10 lists, we present this guest post from Ben Elowitz, who comes down very firmly on the Kindle-is-kaput side of the debate. Ben is co-founder and CEO of Wetpaint, a media company with an audience of 10 million monthly unique users; and author of the Digital Quarters blog. Prior to Wetpaint, he co-founded Blue Nile (NILE), the largest online retailer of fine jewelry.
1) The multi-functional capability. Buy a Kindle and you get… a reader. Another dedicated device to carry. Buy an iPad, and you get a whole new companion that can do pretty much anything. Games, movies, browsing, documents, and more—all in one. And zillions of iPhone apps. It’s sooooo much more than a reader, it’s a whole-life device.
2) The screen. Full color, multi-touch screen, gestures, and more. It’s a pleasure to look at it – and we all can rely on Steve Jobs’ aesthetics to know that it’s a pleasure to hold as well.
3) The compatibility. iPad supports ePub out of the box, overcoming publishers’ resistance to having to support a proprietary format such as Kindle’s; and creating compatibility with books sold through a leading standard format through any channel. (Something tells me Amazon will be making an announcement about ePub support real soon…)
4) The iBooks store. Apple has captured the magic of shopping. Once again, whereas Amazon does great with the functional needs of buying a book, Apple goes beyond to create an experience.
5) The experience. The Kindle provides a good functional experience for readers—in a very Bezosian way, it meets all our needs. But Apple’s creation goes beyond, to make the experience fun and cool. You can swipe through pages on an iPad. On the Kindle, you have to dutifully click a button.
6) The economics. Publishers have been deeply concerned about price erosion with Amazon’s $9.99 pricing—and have been up in arms over Amazon’s 70% revenue share take. Though Amazon has reversed the revenue share (to match Apple’s reported offer at 30%), it would require publishers to cut prices and offer deep discounts. Considering the threat the publishing industry is under, the last thing that publishers want in a time of transition is to have their revenues crammed down further by Jeff Bezos.
7) The apps. In a digital age, a book is (finally!) becoming more than just words on a page. But the Kindle has been slow to recognize this. With the iPad, out of the gate publishers can create whole experiences. Want to create something unique in the market to draw consumers? Publishers can go beyond e-books, and create an app using one of the world’s most popular SDK platforms.
8) The marketplace. Apple’s iBook and App Store marketplaces will instantly be a must-attend venue for publishers. The anticipated sales of the iPad will mean exposure to so many more consumers than Kindle; and Apple already has 125 million consumer store accounts with 12 billion products already downloaded. Amazon won’t even release the number of Kindles sold, because the number of consumers buying its device pales next to Apple’s reach.
9) The price. For $10 more than a Kindle DX, consumers get an incredible ebook reader, and so much more: a device that they can use for, well, pretty much anything. The options, consumer experience, and flexibility for that $10 are a no-brainer.
10) The Apple factor (a.k.a. “sexy”). Let’s face it, Apple is a brand people want to be affiliated with. It has a cool factor. Even those of us who are smart enough to know better still fall in love with Apple products, and carry them with pride. Amazon just doesn’t have that. As Jason Kottke says, “the iPad makes the Kindle look like it’s from the 1980’s”.
Apple has upped the game for Amazon. Jeff Bezos and his team better start a clean sheet of design if they want Kindle to catch up again and play as a leader with consumers.
It’s clear that Amazon is already scared: witness their recent moves in the last few days running up to Apple’s announcement. Just this month, they’ve announced an app framework and a new royalty structure to be more attractive to publishers – and both moves are clearly defensive catch-up plays to respond to the threat of the iPad. Amazon is even trying to win love by giving away free Kindles to their best customers.
But the best plan for Amazon isn’t to try to buy customers or try to match Apple’s approach. Rather, they’ll need to re-think their consumer experience from start to finish. They’ve done a great job so far of digitizing books, but now if they want to compete with Steve Jobs’ inventiveness, they’ll have to step up to be a must-have device in consumers’ digital lives. Of course, they can also just surrender and continue to sell books through their existing iPhone app, which should be compatible with the iPad like all the other apps in the App Store.
from TechCrunch by Guest Author
6 people liked this
Editor’s note: Ever since yesterday’s debut of Apple’s iPad, the debate has been raging about what it means for Amazon’s Kindle. Will it kill it? Will it not? Is comparing the two like comparing a computer to a typewriter? To add fuel to the fire and, well, because we love top 10 lists, we present this guest post from Ben Elowitz, who comes down very firmly on the Kindle-is-kaput side of the debate. Ben is co-founder and CEO of Wetpaint, a media company with an audience of 10 million monthly unique users; and author of the Digital Quarters blog. Prior to Wetpaint, he co-founded Blue Nile (NILE), the largest online retailer of fine jewelry.
1) The multi-functional capability. Buy a Kindle and you get… a reader. Another dedicated device to carry. Buy an iPad, and you get a whole new companion that can do pretty much anything. Games, movies, browsing, documents, and more—all in one. And zillions of iPhone apps. It’s sooooo much more than a reader, it’s a whole-life device.
2) The screen. Full color, multi-touch screen, gestures, and more. It’s a pleasure to look at it – and we all can rely on Steve Jobs’ aesthetics to know that it’s a pleasure to hold as well.
3) The compatibility. iPad supports ePub out of the box, overcoming publishers’ resistance to having to support a proprietary format such as Kindle’s; and creating compatibility with books sold through a leading standard format through any channel. (Something tells me Amazon will be making an announcement about ePub support real soon…)
4) The iBooks store. Apple has captured the magic of shopping. Once again, whereas Amazon does great with the functional needs of buying a book, Apple goes beyond to create an experience.
5) The experience. The Kindle provides a good functional experience for readers—in a very Bezosian way, it meets all our needs. But Apple’s creation goes beyond, to make the experience fun and cool. You can swipe through pages on an iPad. On the Kindle, you have to dutifully click a button.
6) The economics. Publishers have been deeply concerned about price erosion with Amazon’s $9.99 pricing—and have been up in arms over Amazon’s 70% revenue share take. Though Amazon has reversed the revenue share (to match Apple’s reported offer at 30%), it would require publishers to cut prices and offer deep discounts. Considering the threat the publishing industry is under, the last thing that publishers want in a time of transition is to have their revenues crammed down further by Jeff Bezos.
7) The apps. In a digital age, a book is (finally!) becoming more than just words on a page. But the Kindle has been slow to recognize this. With the iPad, out of the gate publishers can create whole experiences. Want to create something unique in the market to draw consumers? Publishers can go beyond e-books, and create an app using one of the world’s most popular SDK platforms.
8) The marketplace. Apple’s iBook and App Store marketplaces will instantly be a must-attend venue for publishers. The anticipated sales of the iPad will mean exposure to so many more consumers than Kindle; and Apple already has 125 million consumer store accounts with 12 billion products already downloaded. Amazon won’t even release the number of Kindles sold, because the number of consumers buying its device pales next to Apple’s reach.
9) The price. For $10 more than a Kindle DX, consumers get an incredible ebook reader, and so much more: a device that they can use for, well, pretty much anything. The options, consumer experience, and flexibility for that $10 are a no-brainer.
10) The Apple factor (a.k.a. “sexy”). Let’s face it, Apple is a brand people want to be affiliated with. It has a cool factor. Even those of us who are smart enough to know better still fall in love with Apple products, and carry them with pride. Amazon just doesn’t have that. As Jason Kottke says, “the iPad makes the Kindle look like it’s from the 1980’s”.
Apple has upped the game for Amazon. Jeff Bezos and his team better start a clean sheet of design if they want Kindle to catch up again and play as a leader with consumers.
It’s clear that Amazon is already scared: witness their recent moves in the last few days running up to Apple’s announcement. Just this month, they’ve announced an app framework and a new royalty structure to be more attractive to publishers – and both moves are clearly defensive catch-up plays to respond to the threat of the iPad. Amazon is even trying to win love by giving away free Kindles to their best customers.
But the best plan for Amazon isn’t to try to buy customers or try to match Apple’s approach. Rather, they’ll need to re-think their consumer experience from start to finish. They’ve done a great job so far of digitizing books, but now if they want to compete with Steve Jobs’ inventiveness, they’ll have to step up to be a must-have device in consumers’ digital lives. Of course, they can also just surrender and continue to sell books through their existing iPhone app, which should be compatible with the iPad like all the other apps in the App Store.
It doesn't have flash, so you're stuck watching whatever you uploaded at the time or buying low-quality videos from iTunes on slow internet.
Great, but I already have skype on all my computers. I will believe that shit when I see it. Apple is always on some bullshit.
Yes Apple bought P.A. Semi, however, they are known for making these kinds of chips. Anyway, come to find out, neither P.A. nor Apple engineers, seemed to have made this chip at all. Seems to be the Tegra 2, but just rebranded. Kind of crazy, cause P.A. was able to make this kind of chip, which is why Apple bought them.
Nevermind, I had posted the answer to my question earlier. Seems to avoid the entire license deal P.A. had with IBM(still got their hands in everything), guess they are still waiting for it to transfer to the acquiring company which is Apple.
Similar threads
