Apple's Post-PC World

[Irishman]

What they need is an app store, and tens of thousands of apps. Then they can really call themselves competitors. The problem is that Apple has a year headstart and they just came out with version 2.0 of their device. (So all that development Samsung, Motorola, etc, have been doing was to compete with an obsolete Apple iPad). The iPad 2 just sent them all back to the drawing board to scramble to develop their own response, taking resources away from what should be the most important next move (building the ecosystem like Android is)

Technically, all they need is market share to be competitors. Further, the iPad2 didn't set anyone back at all: in terms of hardware the Xoom, Tab 10.1, etc are all in the same ballpark. The real problem is that there's a catch 22... there are no tablet specific Android apps because until 2 weeks ago there were no real Android tablets. Of course all the phone apps work fine on tablets, just as all iPhone apps work on an iPad. But in a year from now this won't matter any more because there will be a healthy amount of tablet apps for Android... and probably WebOS/RIM as well... and everyone else will start to undercut Apple on price. It took Android 1.5 years to go from no real phone marketshare to beating the iPhone and I see no reason why this can't happen again.

Um, the Notion Ink Adam is shipping already? Who has it?

I don't know. I'm nervous about a device that tries to be a master of both full-color media consumption and e-ink reading (referring to Pixel Qi's Multi-mode LCD on the Notion Ink).

Probably something like 10 people at this point. But there are reviews of retail hardware all over the web. Their supply issues aren't really the main point though, I was just pointing out that Tegra2 powered devices aren't going to necessarily be expensive. Actually the single most expensive component in a tablet is the LCD and touchscreen panel.

Apple doesn't sell specs. They sell the experience. Show me another tablet where you can have a better experience than an iPad.

Better? That's subjective. Equally accessible? Wait about six months. Honeycomb is almost there (Motorola obviously rushed to market before it was finalized) and the PlayBook and TouchPad all look very promising.

You said alot, and I'll try to give each point the attention it deserves.

1. It's hard to know (for the average smartphone customer) when you go into a mobile store just which ones give you the latest and greatest from Google in terms of OS! So many different phones running so many different versions of Android, you can easily find hardware you love running a a version of Android you don't love. Combine that with the iPhone ecosystem being such a known quantity, and an easier choice to make in terms of options. And for entertainment options, for example of apps that run EVERYWHERE that are just now starting to come out for Android - Netflix. Only Qualcomm chips have the hardware set to run a simple thing like Netflix on Android. There is truth to Steve'o's observation of Android fragmentation.

2. You're kind of making some of my points for me. Until 2 weeks ago, there were no tablet-specific Android apps. Apple had them a year ago. You later said "wait about six months" and "Honeycomb is almost there" (the general gist of which I agree with, that Honeycomb LOOKS good), but in 6 months to a year, the mobile and tablet spaces are going to be that much more solidified and delineated by more mature hardware and software. We don't know how Windows Phone 7 is going to continue to cut into the market, and who might suffer more for it. The Nokia deal will move a TON of phones for MS that otherwise wouldn't have.

3. My point about the iPad is that, for the most part, when it comes to experience, you can download an app (or 10, or 100) to help you have it. It is all about the apps in the tablet space, unlike a mobile phone market where all it has to do is be a phone. If you're going to beat Apple in tablets, you have to do everything they're doing, but doing it better. You have to innovate, not copycat. EG, why does the Xoom and the Playbook form factor look so much like the iPad? Apple's framed the market out of thin air, and if all competitors have to offer is cheaper tablets, I'm not convinced that can be successful.

 

[Marc]

Better? That's subjective. Equally accessible? Wait about six months. Honeycomb is almost there (Motorola obviously rushed to market before it was finalized) and the PlayBook and TouchPad all look very promising.

Probably the biggest headache for Android users is that the hardware providers and phone companies (oh for easy ability to buy smart phones etc without the crap deals because vendor B has signed an exclusive deal with carrier C) is that aren't exactly quick in bring out the updates. Google releases an update for Android and if you're lucky the carrier will release it for the phones on their network (and if you're really unlucky they'll decided you've got a slightly older handset and not bother with updates for it).

Yes I know you can root the phone and load the unskinned roms but not everyone's got the technical inclination to do that.

 

[Arrqh]

1. It's hard to know (for the average smartphone customer) when you go into a mobile store just which ones give you the latest and greatest from Google in terms of OS! So many different phones running so many different versions of Android, you can easily find hardware you love running a a version of Android you don't love.

For a lot of people, this turns out to not really be a concern. But I agree this is a pretty big issue for Android.

Only Qualcomm chips have the hardware set to run a simple thing like Netflix on Android. There is truth to Steve'o's observation of Android fragmentation.

No, the reason there is no Netflix on Android is because of the rather stiff requirements Netflix is forced to have for their DRM solution. The Android OS does not support their requirements, so instead the handset makers have decided to implement it in hardware. It's a complicated situation, but Win7 phones with the same CPUs as current Android phones are able to run Netflix apps. This is also a very specific case and not representative of most apps or services on the platform.

... but in 6 months to a year, the mobile and tablet spaces are going to be that much more solidified and delineated by more mature hardware and software.

Given the pace of innovation in the mobile market there's no reason to believe that the market will be "solidified"... I'll again point out that Android took a majority share of the phone market in 1.5 years and for all we know in another year it could loose out to HP's new WebOS devices. The entire thing is just too volatile right now to be making those sorts of calls. Which is why I say wait six months... a lot is going to happen in that time period.

If you're going to beat Apple in tablets, you have to do everything they're doing, but doing it better. You have to innovate, not copycat. EG, why does the Xoom and the Playbook form factor look so much like the iPad? Apple's framed the market out of thin air, and if all competitors have to offer is cheaper tablets, I'm not convinced that can be successful.

Why does the iPad look like tablets that came before it? The basic form factor... a big touchscreen... is not something Apple invented nor is it representative of a lack of innovation. It simply is the best form factor for this type or product. You may as well be claiming that other laptop manufacturers are coping Apple because they're all clamshells with a keyboard. Apple (obviously) didn't invent that either and the form factor is simply the one that makes the most sense for the platform.

In terms of hardware, sure, there isn't a lot of innovation in that sense... there is in terms of the actual internals. nVidia, for example, has an extremely aggressive plan for their mobile CPUs over the next two years. In terms of software, webOS, BlackBerry OS, iOS and Android are all doing things that are unique and different. They all resemble each other because there are certain conventions that simply work best for the form factor... but from a high level perspective Windows and MacOS resemble each other too.

 

[Irishman]

No, the reason there is no Netflix on Android is because of the rather stiff requirements Netflix is forced to have for their DRM solution. The Android OS does not support their requirements, so instead the handset makers have decided to implement it in hardware. It's a complicated situation, but Win7 phones with the same CPUs as current Android phones are able to run Netflix apps. This is also a very specific case and not representative of most apps or services on the platform.

I mention it because, for a lot of people, when it comes to entertainment, Netflix is a big part of their lives, and a NEW device that doesn't support it, will lose marketshare, not gain it. Almost every HDTV, Blu-ray player, media streaming box, smart phone and tablet run it! But not Android.

Given the pace of innovation in the mobile market there's no reason to believe that the market will be "solidified"... I'll again point out that Android took a majority share of the phone market in 1.5 years and for all we know in another year it could loose out to HP's new WebOS devices. The entire thing is just too volatile right now to be making those sorts of calls. Which is why I say wait six months... a lot is going to happen in that time period.

Who's innovating in the mobile space? Meego has died on the vine, Palm got bought out by HP, and is being led by committee, not a visionary designer like they used to have. Even MS (after the political infighting that drove the Kin to an early death) is doing in mobile what they've always done in PCs - create an OS that gets licensed out to hardware makers, in this case handsets instead of computers.

I, too, say "wait 6 months". It won't be as happy a place for Android, unless they seriously reassess their shortcomings and do so in a compelling way.

Why does the iPad look like tablets that came before it? The basic form factor... a big touchscreen... is not something Apple invented nor is it representative of a lack of innovation. It simply is the best form factor for this type or product. You may as well be claiming that other laptop manufacturers are coping Apple because they're all clamshells with a keyboard. Apple (obviously) didn't invent that either and the form factor is simply the one that makes the most sense for the platform.

Um, years ago, PC makers had written off tablet PCs as a nonstarter. Noone wanted them, they said. And they had good reason to conclude that, considering what they were offering consumers - large, bulky, convertible laptops with wonky styluses for handwriting recognition, that ran hot. What was the PC industry's next move? Netbooks. Cheap, dumb laptop alternatives that don't do anything well.

That seems to sum up the industry - if you build it, they will come, and if they don't, do it cheaper and flimsier.

 

[Marc]

No, the reason there is no Netflix on Android is because of the rather stiff requirements Netflix is forced to have for their DRM solution. The Android OS does not support their requirements, so instead the handset makers have decided to implement it in hardware. It's a complicated situation, but Win7 phones with the same CPUs as current Android phones are able to run Netflix apps. This is also a very specific case and not representative of most apps or services on the platform.

I mention it because, for a lot of people, when it comes to entertainment, Netflix is a big part of their lives, and a NEW device that doesn't support it, will lose marketshare, not gain it. Almost every HDTV, Blu-ray player, media streaming box, smart phone and tablet run it! But not Android.

And people say the same thing about Flash but lack of support doesn't seem to be hurting iDevice sales.

and if you're outside the U.S data rates are such that you're not going to be streaming media on your portable device.

 

[Irishman]

No, the reason there is no Netflix on Android is because of the rather stiff requirements Netflix is forced to have for their DRM solution. The Android OS does not support their requirements, so instead the handset makers have decided to implement it in hardware. It's a complicated situation, but Win7 phones with the same CPUs as current Android phones are able to run Netflix apps. This is also a very specific case and not representative of most apps or services on the platform.

I mention it because, for a lot of people, when it comes to entertainment, Netflix is a big part of their lives, and a NEW device that doesn't support it, will lose marketshare, not gain it. Almost every HDTV, Blu-ray player, media streaming box, smart phone and tablet run it! But not Android.

And people say the same thing about Flash but lack of support doesn't seem to be hurting iDevice sales.

and if you're outside the U.S data rates are such that you're not going to be streaming media on your portable device.

Where are you and do you mind sharing the rates you're paying? I was under the impression that, in many cases, the US paid more for less bandwidth.

 

[infinix]

If you're going to beat Apple in tablets, you have to do everything they're doing, but doing it better. You have to innovate, not copycat. EG, why does the Xoom and the Playbook form factor look so much like the iPad? Apple's framed the market out of thin air, and if all competitors have to offer is cheaper tablets, I'm not convinced that can be successful.

For me as an user, I will choose the tablet that gives me an expandable memory, an universal Micro USB connector, a true drag and drop file management system, and option to double as a phone if I choose to use it. None of what I listed is offered by Apple, so I will not be interested in buying an Apple device until that changes.

 

[infinix]

Where are you and do you mind sharing the rates you're paying? I was under the impression that, in many cases, the US paid more for less bandwidth.

I can tell you from my personal experience while cell phone has a much greater bandwidth in Asia, the rate is not cheaper. In fact, people have to pay a-la-cart and the per-byte cost is higher than the US per-byte cost. It is only in the US that cell phone users have the unlimited data options.

I know AT&T went off of the unlimited data plans, but seeing as how Verizon and Sprint are drilling AT&T on the fact that they still have unlimited data, AT&T might have to resume offering that service.

 

[Irishman]

If you're going to beat Apple in tablets, you have to do everything they're doing, but doing it better. You have to innovate, not copycat. EG, why does the Xoom and the Playbook form factor look so much like the iPad? Apple's framed the market out of thin air, and if all competitors have to offer is cheaper tablets, I'm not convinced that can be successful.

For me as an user, I will choose the tablet that gives me an expandable memory, an universal Micro USB connector, a true drag and drop file management system, and option to double as a phone if I choose to use it. None of what I listed is offered by Apple, so I will not be interested in buying an Apple device until that changes.

So, okay, those are specific divergences between you and the devices Apple makes. Let's talk about it. What is your use of PCs, as a related question?

As far as the phone usage, Skype has been and is still available for iOS.

 

[Marc]

Where are you and do you mind sharing the rates you're paying? I was under the impression that, in many cases, the US paid more for less bandwidth.

I can tell you from my personal experience while cell phone has a much greater bandwidth in Asia, the rate is not cheaper. In fact, people have to pay a-la-cart and the per-byte cost is higher than the US per-byte cost. It is only in the US that cell phone users have the unlimited data options.

I know AT&T went off of the unlimited data plans, but seeing as how Verizon and Sprint are drilling AT&T on the fact that they still have unlimited data, AT&T might have to resume offering that service.

I'm in Canada. A plan with Bell (the predominant carrier here) with 3GB of data on my smartphone would cost me $113 per month ($100 base plus 13% taxes).

My home internet is with Cogeco cable on a 14Mbps connection with 60GB per month (data measured in both directions) and it costs me $51.92.

We've had some smaller ISPs doing unlimited data plans but a recent ruling by the CTRC (Canadian Telecommunications Regulatory Commission which is currently stacked with former execs from the biggest telecos) ruled they won't be able to do that any more after a complaint from Bell while another company Rogers cut it's data caps the same day Netflix started in Canada.

 

[Guartho]

As others have said, there are a lot of people in the world who use their computers for more than email and the web. Apple's shiny toys don't fit the bill for actual work.

I fully expect you to refund me the thousands of dollars in income taxes I've paid in the last 5 years since I couldn't have been doing actual work because I was doing it on a Mac.

 

[Flavius]

Laptops ..they die young.

Not so young. My primary computer is a MacBook Pro from 2006. I also still have a TiBook from 2002, which still works great except for being unable to play flash smoothly.

Clearly, some are more equal than others, most certainly those gorgeous Titanium Powerbooks.

 

[Marc]

As others have said, there are a lot of people in the world who use their computers for more than email and the web. Apple's shiny toys don't fit the bill for actual work.

I fully expect you to refund me the thousands of dollars in income taxes I've paid in the last 5 years since I couldn't have been doing actual work because I was doing it on a Mac.

And Adobe might have to explain what people were doing with all those copies of Photoshop/Creative Suite For Mac they've sold over the years.

I wonder if the poster you quoted has every actually used a Mac?

 

[Gepard]

There's some kind of architecture or drafting firm I pass by every day on my way to work, and their big, glass-fronted office is filled with nothing but iMacs and blueprints pinned up everywhere. Looks like we'll have to explain to them that they're not doing "real work," either.

 

[Arrqh]

I mention it because, for a lot of people, when it comes to entertainment, Netflix is a big part of their lives, and a NEW device that doesn't support it, will lose marketshare, not gain it. Almost every HDTV, Blu-ray player, media streaming box, smart phone and tablet run it! But not Android.

I thought you said you were mentioning it to make a point about fragmentation? In any case, Netflix is not going to make or break a platform not to mention that I'd say within a fairly short time frame all the highend Android devices will have hardware supported needed for this.

I, too, say "wait 6 months". It won't be as happy a place for Android, unless they seriously reassess their shortcomings and do so in a compelling way.

They've had success doing that in the past. Maybe they won't this time but lets not count our chickens before they hatch.

Um, years ago, PC makers had written off tablet PCs as a nonstarter. Noone wanted them, they said. And they had good reason to conclude that, considering what they were offering consumers - large, bulky, convertible laptops with wonky styluses for handwriting recognition, that ran hot. What was the PC industry's next move? Netbooks. Cheap, dumb laptop alternatives that don't do anything well.

Various companies have taken a crack at the tablet market over the past decade and the form factor is nothing new. Microsoft made a big push with TabletPC's a decade ago. Hell it even appeared in science fiction over and over. The point is that the form factor of the iPad is not innovative at all. This isn't to say that there is nothing about the iPad that is innovative because of course there is... but your assertion was that no one else is being innovative because the form factor of all competitors was the same as the iPad. And I think this is a poor metric for innovation.

 

[Mr. B]

As others have said, there are a lot of people in the world who use their computers for more than email and the web. Apple's shiny toys don't fit the bill for actual work.

I fully expect you to refund me the thousands of dollars in income taxes I've paid in the last 5 years since I couldn't have been doing actual work because I was doing it on a Mac.

And Adobe might have to explain what people were doing with all those copies of Photoshop/Creative Suite For Mac they've sold over the years.

I wonder if the poster you quoted has every actually used a Mac?

I'm sorry I thought this was a thread about devices that aren't traditional computers.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

Like many things in life, there is something for everyone. Is the iPad the right device for everyone? No, but for the majority it is, as of right now. The whole of Apples post PC idea is not to capture those who are "power users" because they are the minority in the market. They are going after the least tech savvy consumer and saying we can give you the ability to leverage the power of computers in easy to use form and function. The growth in this market is exponential. We advance users look at these things through different eyes then most consumers. We see something with limited functionality like the iPad and don't see any value or little value and this is true for us. For Apple gaining new customers with a device like the iPad is the beginning, once this new user masters the iPad they can graduate to an iPhone, then to a MacBook or iMac.

I own an iPad, because it is simple. I use it for work and home. I give a lot of powerpoint presentations and it is super easy to take my iPad and do the presentation. I can also show videos, which I do a lot as well. I can surf the Internet and read a book, either in a hotel room or sitting on my couch. I have a few apps I use, but not many. One big use is for my two year old son to watch movies, especially Cars. My two year old can use the iPad, somewhat. That's how easy it is to use. He knows how to turn it on, get his movie or storybook and sit back and use it. He will inherit this iPad when ever I get the next one, but I have no plans of updating soon.

 

[Irishman]

Like many things in life, there is something for everyone. Is the iPad the right device for everyone? No, but for the majority it is, as of right now. The whole of Apples post PC idea is not to capture those who are "power users" because they are the minority in the market. They are going after the least tech savvy consumer and saying we can give you the ability to leverage the power of computers in easy to use form and function. The growth in this market is exponential. We advance users look at these things through different eyes then most consumers. We see something with limited functionality like the iPad and don't see any value or little value and this is true for us. For Apple gaining new customers with a device like the iPad is the beginning, once this new user masters the iPad they can graduate to an iPhone, then to a MacBook or iMac.

I own an iPad, because it is simple. I use it for work and home. I give a lot of powerpoint presentations and it is super easy to take my iPad and do the presentation. I can also show videos, which I do a lot as well. I can surf the Internet and read a book, either in a hotel room or sitting on my couch. I have a few apps I use, but not many. One big use is for my two year old son to watch movies, especially Cars. My two year old can use the iPad, somewhat. That's how easy it is to use. He knows how to turn it on, get his movie or storybook and sit back and use it. He will inherit this iPad when ever I get the next one, but I have no plans of updating soon.

I think a good way to summarize that is that Apple makes devices that do 90% of what 90% of the people want.

 

[Jadzia]

I think a good way to summarize that is that Apple makes devices that do 90% of what 90% of the people want.

And that's a worry...

Over the past 10 years, computers have become mainstream. The customer base has changed, and business adapts to the needs of the majority. In time, MS and other companies may align themselves with the Apple philosophy, because it's where the money is.

There may come a time when it's no longer commercially viable to make machines that serve that 10% minority.

Reduced demand --> reduced sales --> reduced production --> less benefit from mass production --> inflated prices --> product is less desirable --> product is harder to find in shops --> less people know about and understand the product --> product moves closer to extinction

 

[Irishman]

I think a good way to summarize that is that Apple makes devices that do 90% of what 90% of the people want.

And that's a worry...

Over the past 10 years, computers have become mainstream. The customer base has changed, and business adapts to the needs of the majority. In time, MS and other companies may align themselves with the Apple philosophy, because it's where the money is.

There may come a time when it's no longer commercially viable to make machines that serve that 10% minority.

Reduced demand --> reduced sales --> reduced production --> less benefit from mass production --> inflated prices --> product is less desirable --> product is harder to find in shops --> less people know about and understand the product --> product moves closer to extinction

But when has that EVER happened? When has an industry made extinct the tools needed to sustain itself? Because that's what it sounds like you fear here.