Tablets - toys or tools?

[Fast Eddie B]

I highly doubt that it will (spank the iPad) Apple has the best marketing team in the world. People will buy iPads over Xooms even if the Xoom is the better device.



Yes. And it looks seriously awesome.



I am sure it will have stuff that they could have easily put in the first edition but didn't so people would have a reason to upgrade.

When I listed my (multiple) reasons for buying Apple products over the years, I made sure to mention that those were the conscious reasons - I obviously cannot address the unconscious reasons.

And I'm sure clever marketing over the years has helped cement the image of the brand in my lizard brain.

The Xoom running Honeycomb is expected to be teh awesome - and I look forward to seeing one and playing with it. Will it have more features than the year-old iPad ver 1? Almost certainly. Will it be "better"? To reduce the comparison to one word like that (better) is to miss the point. Simple and elegant will appeal to some people more than multi-featured.

Clever marketing will always help, but to chalk Apple's success off to that alone is really simplistic.

As far as features that could have been in iPad ver 1, certainly a camera comes to mind. But Apple was striving for that $499 price point, which about a year ago shocked everyone. And if the Xoom debuts at about $800, it will have an uphill battle for the general consumer, IMHO.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Airbook LOOKS nice, I just.. eh. I don't realyl look at tablets, something about a 400ish budget for a new computer.

(I'd just like something with OCR and the ability to draw art on a screen. And preferably Word+OneNote capability. *sigh*)

link

Link to a $400 tablet netbook.

 

[PhreePhly]

fls and I have discussed the iPad in an older thread. I used an iPad for about a week. This was about a month or two after they were first introduced. For me, at that point, it was absolutely a toy.

Since then, I have about 8 acquaintances who have iPads. For one of then, the iPad is certainly a tool. His laptop now stays at work and he uses his iPad for every bit of communications he uses. (he even annoyingly adds "sent from my awesome iPad" on every email).

I wanted to try out the iPad, now that more apps were available for it, and see if I could justify it, so I asked a few friends if they could part with theirs for a week or so. Amazingly, 3 of them hadn't touched their iPads for over a month. The newness wore off and they found little use for it. They were happy to let me borrow it for a week or so. Two of them even asked if I wanted to buy it after I was done with it.

I spent about a 2 weeks playing with a wireless only version and while I am amazed at the quality of some of the apps, the device is still way too limiting for use as a computing device, for me. I also have a Droid Incredible smartphone, and other than screen size, the iPad seems to be nothing more than a camera-less, telephony-less smartphone. For me, the iPad would be an expensive toy, but I can really see how it would be useful for a large segment of the population, especially those that basically only e-mail, facebook, and participate in forums.

The biggest problem I have with the iPad, is that you still need a "real" computer to run iTunes. If you're on Apple hardware, that's fine, but iTunes is one of the crappiest pieces of software ever written for Windows, and being forced to use it in order to run your Slate device is a cruel requirement.

 

[Wowbagger]

Hey, I just realized something: For the first time in my personal history of buying computer systems, my laptop is actually going to have better specs, in general, than my current desktop! (Notable exception being the graphics card.)

This must be rectified! I must acquire a new desktop machine, soon, as well!!

 

[fls]

The biggest problem I have with the iPad, is that you still need a "real" computer to run iTunes. If you're on Apple hardware, that's fine, but iTunes is one of the crappiest pieces of software ever written for Windows, and being forced to use it in order to run your Slate device is a cruel requirement.

I remember your complaints about iTunes. Admittedly, I sync with my husband's Mac instead of my PC (we try to keep the music library somewhat centralized (most of it is legal ), but I hardly do anything with iTunes. I sync once in a while, which is automatic now that it's set up (and I only clicked a few boxes to set it up). But if I do anything with iTunes, like make playlists, I do it on the iPad. So I don't understand how a crappy program could make that very limited interaction cruel.

Yeah Packers!!!!

Linda

 

[PhreePhly]

The problem is that you still have to install it. The additional crap that iTunes installs is invasive. Really, it is a poorly designed, unnecessarily invasive program. On OSX it is apparently a good program, but not on Windows.

Go Packers++

 

[not daSkeptic]

... the device is still way too limiting for use as a computing device, for me.

If by computing you mean things like software development, media production, or high-end gaming, then yes, it is too limiting. Expecting it to do those things is rather like expecting a Yugo to haul trees out of a ditch. It just wasn't intended.

 

[PhreePhly]

I'm taking about spreadsheets and some programming. The point is that it is advertised as a netbook/laptop replacement, and in some cases it is, but in my case, not close.

 

[not daSkeptic]

The point is that it is advertised as a netbook/laptop replacement ...

Could you cite some of these ads? They would be quite a 180 from Jobs' initial announcement.

 

[fls]

The problem is that you still have to install it. The additional crap that iTunes installs is invasive. Really, it is a poorly designed, unnecessarily invasive program. On OSX it is apparently a good program, but not on Windows.

Ah, that makes sense.

Go Packers++

Occasionally I manage to back a winner.

Linda

 

[fls]

I'm taking about spreadsheets and some programming. The point is that it is advertised as a netbook/laptop replacement, and in some cases it is, but in my case, not close.

I haven't seen it advertised as a replacement. It seems more like, "if this is the kind of stuff you like to do, an iPad will do the trick." It seems to have turned out that rather than looking for a laptop/net book replacement, a laptop/net book wasn't what they were looking for in the first place.

ETA: For example, Quadraginta was worried about whether I could download an HP Photosmart driver. But I don't need a driver to print on it fom my iPad.

Linda

 

[Fast Eddie B]

..."if this is the kind of stuff you like to do, an iPad will do the trick."

Reminds me of a movie review that my Mom thought would fit any and all movies:

"If you like this kind of movie, this is the kind of movie you'll like."

To paraphrase, "If you like this kind of device, this is the kind of device you'll like."

And a lot of people apparently do!

 

[not daSkeptic]

It seems more like, "if this is the kind of stuff you like to do, an iPad will do the trick."

Indeed. Apple's marketing of the iPad and iPhone tends to focus on what the devices can do rather than just showing off the devices themselves.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

ETA: For example, Quadraginta was worried about whether I could download an HP Photosmart driver. But I don't need a driver to print on it fom my iPad.

Linda

Mis-characterize much? I don't recall being "worried" about anything at all, or even expressing such an emotion.

I asked if you could install that device specific printer driver on your iPad. You haven't addressed that.

I too can run my HP Photosmart printer with a generic driver. However, I can't set up a print queue which will tell the printer that I want to use the third, greyscale ink head on certain print jobs and only the other two on others, or only the black ink head on still others. Margin control for photo printing is not supported as fully. Etc., etc.

Again, the functionality is reduced. Without the dedicated driver for that printer many of the features which I wanted it for are inaccessible. If I had wanted a barebones, basic function printer I would have bought one, instead.

 

[fls]

Mis-characterize much? I don't recall being "worried" about anything at all, or even expressing such an emotion.

Of course, I didn't think you were actually worried.

I have to watch it around you, I guess. I also got in trouble with my Steelers fan friend when I suggested she could come out to a movie tonight, since she wasn't going to be busy celebrating.

I asked if you could install that device specific printer driver on your iPad. You haven't addressed that.

I thought I did. I said that I didn't need a driver to print (I just hit "print" on the menu).

I too can run my HP Photosmart printer with a generic driver. However, I can't set up a print queue which will tell the printer that I want to use the third, greyscale ink head on certain print jobs and only the other two on others, or only the black ink head on still others. Margin control for photo printing is not supported as fully. Etc., etc.

I've never set which greyscale ink heads are used.

Again, the functionality is reduced. Without the dedicated driver for that printer many of the features which I wanted it for are inaccessible. If I had wanted a barebones, basic function printer I would have bought one, instead.

And like I said in my first post and a few posts back, if you need a device that does different stuff from what the iPad does, don't get an iPad. The kind of printing I need to do from my iPad doesn't need those functions. If I need those functions, I'm probably working on my desktop PC anyway.

Linda

 

[Cuddles]

Indeed. Apple's marketing of the iPad and iPhone tends to focus on what the devices can do rather than just showing off the devices themselves.

Actually, I always find the Apple adverts rather amusing, since they don't show anything about the device at all. All they do is tell you what a couple of apps written by someone else entirely can do, for which there are likely exact equivalents for Android and Windows anyway. Except they don't even do that, and have now been forced to put a disclaimer on their adverts pointing out that the apps don't actually work anything like the way they show in the adverts and the whole thing is completely made up to make it look good.

Of course, Apple are hardly alone in that. The current Windows adverts are even worse, and mostly amount to little more than "Your computer can connect to the internet! Isn't Windows 7 amazing!". I'm not sure what's worse - that all computer companies assume their customers are all complete retards, or that the majority of the time they're actually correct.

 

[fls]

Actually, I always find the Apple adverts rather amusing, since they don't show anything about the device at all. All they do is tell you what a couple of apps written by someone else entirely can do, for which there are likely exact equivalents for Android and Windows anyway. Except they don't even do that, and have now been forced to put a disclaimer on their adverts pointing out that the apps don't actually work anything like the way they show in the adverts and the whole thing is completely made up to make it look good.

Of course, Apple are hardly alone in that. The current Windows adverts are even worse, and mostly amount to little more than "Your computer can connect to the internet! Isn't Windows 7 amazing!". I'm not sure what's worse - that all computer companies assume their customers are all complete retards, or that the majority of the time they're actually correct.

I'm pretty sure that most people realize that computers and similar devices work by running programs, so I am confused by the suggestion that showing the devices running those programs is misleading. It also does not surprise me that when an actual sequence takes 10 seconds and you have a 30 second spot, that you would abbreviate sequences so that instead of showing 3 different kinds of things to do, you can show 6 or more instead. But then again, I'm so retarded that I think using L'Oreal products will make me look like Milla Jovovich.

I like commercials. They are an excellent source of educational opportunities in critical thinking and about the only thing my kids will still do with their parents.

Linda

 

[not daSkeptic]

Actually, I always find the Apple adverts rather amusing, since they don't show anything about the device at all. All they do is tell you what a couple of apps written by someone else entirely can do ...

That's actually good marketing. Apple knows their target demographic. They know the people to whom they're selling don't generally give a crap about the device and would rather see what it can do for them in the real world.

... for which there are likely exact equivalents for Android and Windows anyway.

I don't know that Apple ever claimed anything to the contrary. Anyway, what's stopping other companies from doing like Apple and showcasing apps? Is somebody forcing them to take more device-centric approach to advertising? Are they perhaps targeting a different market, one that is interested in the hardware?

Except they don't even do that, and have now been forced to put a disclaimer on their adverts pointing out that the apps don't actually work anything like the way they show in the adverts and the whole thing is completely made up to make it look good.

The ads I've seen do contain disclaimers, yes, but they simply state that the apps shown do not function as quickly in reality as they appear to on screen. Have there been other notices?

 

[not daSkeptic]

I like commercials. They are an excellent source of educational opportunities in critical thinking and about the only thing my kids will still do with their parents.

Here here. I can remember as a kid responding to TV spots as children do, and my parents would point out the realities of the ads -- drawing my attention to the fine print, analyzing the precise wording, etc.

 

[elgarak]

That's actually good marketing. Apple knows their target demographic. They know the people to whom they're selling don't generally give a crap about the device and would rather see what it can do for them in the real world.



I don't know that Apple ever claimed anything to the contrary. Anyway, what's stopping other companies from doing like Apple and showcasing apps? Is somebody forcing them to take more device-centric approach to advertising? Are they perhaps targeting a different market, one that is interested in the hardware?



The ads I've seen do contain disclaimers, yes, but they simply state that the apps shown do not function as quickly in reality as they appear to on screen. Have there been other notices?

No, that's all that Apple does -- speeding up.

ALL other companies include the disclaimer "Screen images simulated". That can cover a whole lot. Usually, it just means that the screen capture of a real-life app has been photoshopped onto the screen, but it would also cover a whole made-up animation.

But Apple has (almost) never done this, and I believe that Steve Jobs takes great pride in that they do not have to. The screen images, for instance, are always running ON the device itself -- they're not photoshopped in.

The sole exception I can recall was the iPod Nano with the crappy built-in camera. Here, the videos were actually shot with a better quality camera and then fed into the Nano. This commercial (and the Nano itself) vanished rather quickly.