Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1.    #1  
    Why Apple doesn't need an iPad 2 | Crave - CNET

    But as competing manufacturers trip over themselves to out-spec each other, I have to wonder if they're missing the point. In fact, it feels a little like deja-vu after spending the past four years watching companies wage a failed battle of specs against the iPod.
    I don't usually take a lot of stuff seriously on CNET but this is a well written article. And its spot on.
  2. #2  
    from the article:

    "For other iPad competitors, luring and retaining users based on their familiarity with the OS and loyalty to the brand will take time. "

    Yet to be seen since it seems like HP is starting all over again in the summer.
  3. #3  
    Most of Apple's competitors are hardware manufacturers so they only see this challenge from a single viewpoint: Build better hardware than Apple for cheaper. They occasionally succeed with the former, but nearly always succeed in the latter. The result is the market is flooded with a rash of cheap, apple-wannabe devices with tiny profit margins and no ecosystem. The people who buy these cheap devices defend them vehemently by arguing price-performance as their measure of usefulness/productivity and calling apple customers sheep. Apple, on the other hand, laughs all the way to the bank and their customers enjoy the tightly integrated system they receive with their purchases.
    Last edited by Kupe; 02/18/2011 at 09:54 AM.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    Most of Apple's competitors are hardware manufacturers so they only see this challenge from a single viewpoint: Build better hardware than Apple for cheaper. They occasionally succeed with the former, but nearly always succeed in the latter. The result is the market is flooded with a rash of cheap, apple-wannabe devices with tiny profit margins and no ecosystem. The people who buy these cheap devices defend them vehemently by arguing price-performance as their measure of usefulness/productivity. Apple, on the other hand, laughs all the way to the bank.
    Well said.

    That's the biggest problem: everyone is trying to "match" apple.. not do their own thing. Copying is failure. No business strategy will succeed by doing so.

    Thats why I know HP is on the right track. They're integrating webOS into a pretty straight forward, easy, and innovative ecosystem.

    All it will come down to is how they market it. And to market successfully, they have to dumb it down to the masses so they can understand and put it on roids.
  5. #5  
    I think by ecosystem Kupe is saying more like my post below?:

    http://forums.precentral.net/webos-s...ml#post2875003
  6. #6  
    Good article.

    There is nothing like iTunes and the App Store on any other platform, PERIOD. These are exceedingly successful for all the reasons the anti-Apple tech crowd rail against. This makes the iPad the only serious pad for the foreseeable future.

    This becomes apparent when you consider what detractors say about the iPad, and how they compete. The iPad is just a big iPod. Great! Not too many things were more successful than the iPod. It is just a consumption device. Great! What ecosystem has more media and apps to consume?

    How do they compete, with the only weapons they have at their disposal: Flash. Can't get developers to make great games for your platform? Leverage the thousands of crappy Flash games already on the web. Can't build your own media empire? No problem. Leverage the free media already available on the web. There is already DRM built into Flash, so it is a turnkey solution.

    When Flash is the solution, you have a huge problem. Flash is not just a convenient add-on for other platforms; it is the salvation. The other component is free, ad-based services. Again, these are turnkey solutions for companies without a viable ecosystem.

    The big difference between these approaches is that Flash and ad-based systems are a complete solution for manufacturers. The Apple ecosystem is a complete solution for end users. Courting the end user is the tougher model, but the payoff is huge.
  7. #7  
    Excellent article. I've felt this way for a long time.

    These in the list stood out so much.
    • Apps
    • Music, podcast, and lecture downloads
    • Movie and TV downloads
    • Desktop Sync software
    • Accessory support
    • Games
    • Device Ecosystem


    Those things were in fact why i bought a Pre. I just don't think Palm ever delivered what i was wanting. Yes i did really want an Ipod. Pre was an alternative. Here at Precentral there is a lots of focus when it comes to phones on specs and os and multitasking. Like how many ghz a processer is but i think for me and most consumers the above are a much more compelling reason to buy a phone. I'll always argue that the endless "but we have real multitasking" misses the point. That argueing that the Pre 1, 2, or 3 is the same processor or better as the iphone or even EVO is focusing on something that to the huge majority of consumers doesn't matter.

    and specifically if you look at the above list. other then maybe games HP now and Palm before them have pretty much sucked at. They really paid barely any attention to the music and podcasting portion and tried to piggyback in the desktop software category. When the OP says are they missing the point i'd argue originally palm didn't get that stuff like the behavior of the music player, podcasting, etc, is much more important then say, can i stack one window on another. "inside every iPhone and iPad is the world's most popular music player." That's a big selling point. And they aren't even in the game for video downloading. Even in WebOS 2.0 I saw zero updates to music player, video player, camera app, video camera app, a podcasting integration, or anything that's about consumable media. So yeah i think in a sense they don't get it. I'm not saying they don't have good ideas. There's nothing wrong with stacks. I just don't think it's important.

    "iTunes has us pulling our hair out sometimes, but, ... and the cross-syncing of apps, music, e-books, videos, and podcasts just isn't as tight. In my mind that's a huge thing. YOu can find a way to get those things done on an HP phone, and even android, but i don't think it's nearly as "tight". On windows itunes has major issues. But it's pretty simple and effective for a lot of people and there's nothing as good from Palm. And yes of course i've tried other things.


    for the record i don't think Google fully get's it either. But they also don't have too cause they make their money in other places plus their business model is different then both apple, HP, RIM, and they don't have to make a profit off the OS. Plus Google is about that stark utilitarianism. Like Gmail isn't fancy. Google.com has little slickness of flash. it doesn't really need it. And Android was the same when it first came out. It was ugly as sin. Honestly it's why i didn't get a G1 and one thing that WebOS had really had over it. But android icons were ugly, there was no sheen. Even now the layout lacks polish and consistency but you can see that the look of Android has slicked up a bit. icons have some shine, shadows, rendering, and HOneycomb sort of starts to bring the flash. Google's killing it on volume, apps growth that spawned from sheer volume growth, and sound integration with google services. Not to mention, they are a software company and keep on releasing new software.

    I'm sure they know apps are important. I bet they'd have thousands if they could convince people but the fact remains they are struggling and for HP's sake i hope they can solve that issue. But for my money people can argue spec, "but it's the best OS", "real multitasking", etc but i think the average consumer isn't a tech guru and is more about how it feels in the hand, is it a sexy device, and all the above things much more then how much ram it has. And in my opinion, Nothing at all that i saw on Feb 9 changed my mind

    My 2 cents.
    Last edited by blackmagic01; 02/21/2011 at 03:56 AM.
  8. #8  
    post moved to a new thread...I don't want to take this thread off-topic...
    Last edited by milominderbinder; 02/21/2011 at 10:53 PM.
  9. #9  
    The people who bought the first iPad certinally do nit need an iPad 2, but I would argue that Apple still needs and iPad 2. Why would they risk losing market share by not having a new device come out. Apple is known to do incremental upgrades on a yearly basis and this will be another one for good reason. Things get dingy after a while and you have to shine them up. its like saying they do not need an iPhone5 or that the Mac book's do not need a refresh...simply just silly. Apple has let Android in to the game by being confined to At&t I do not see them letting anyone slip into the tablet game as easily.

Posting Permissions