iphone

kosmo wrote:
Doctor wrote:

That being said, it is shockingly unimaginative given how Apple likes to position itself, and given how much time they've spent developing it.   Once you cut through Steven Jobs' extensive hyperbole, there isn't much there that's new other than the size.




And it's the size that's really got me puzzled…. It's to big to carried around by it's own in a pocket like an iPhone requiring always have a man bag to use it.  Are women going to really want to lug something that big around?



I can see a use for it in my life – I have a laptop which I basically use to surf the web while I'm sitting on the couch, and to control Itunes with over my stereo.  I can imagine using it that way and as an oversized remote control.  Can't imagine carrying it around.

One thing I was wondering was whether Apple would introduce another rather rudimentary concept – folders – on this thing.  From the photos I don't see that.  If you've got more than a few apps on an iphone you already know how annoying it can be to hunt for them without a way to organize them.

Beyond that, the usual Apple hype – words like "magical" and "phenomenal" just irk me.  I think the baisc concept is a fine one, I just hope someone comes along and executes it better.



Doctor wrote:
I think the baisc concept is a fine one, I just hope someone comes along and executes it better.


I have high hopes for the HP Slate, and I hope that an Android/Chrome OS version with a dual-core atom/ION combo or a tegra2 can come in at $500 (I don't think a Win7 version can do that, but I'd love to be wrong). 

The Slate will struggle to match 10 hours of battery life, but I'm willing to sacrifice that for the flexibility added to a device that isn't tied to on manufacturer's business model.
godsshoeshine wrote:
wait, does this have a flash player on it


Says Adobe:

"It looks like Apple is continuing to impose restrictions on their devices that limit both content publishers and consumers. Unlike many other ebook readers using the ePub file format, consumers will not be able to access ePub content with Apple's DRM technology on devices made by other manufacturers. And without Flash support, iPad users will not be able to access the full range of web content, including over 70% of games and 75% of video on the web.

If I want to use the iPad to connect to Disney, Hulu, Miniclip, Farmville, ESPN, Kongregate, or JibJab – not to mention the millions of other sites on the web – I'll be out of luck."
How does one explain all of this?  My theory is that Apple's large base of worshippers who will line up for hours and pay top dollar for any product they release, means they don't feel much incentive to really innovate.

Now they've really gone and done it. They pissed off Hitler!

One of many.
vansmack wrote:
godsshoeshine wrote:
wait, does this have a flash player on it


Says Adobe:

"If I want to use the iPad to connect to Disney, Hulu, Miniclip, Farmville, ESPN, Kongregate, or JibJab – not to mention the millions of other sites on the web – I'll be out of luck."



This isn't exactly true, and is just Adobe kicking up the drama. I can get to all of the sites listed above, and in most cases get plenty of info off of them. Most of the flash visuals on these, and many other sites, are awful anyway. Besides, hasn't anyone ever heard of jquery? Works great on the iphone.

Not that I'm in the Ipad is good court. For me the jury is still out…
redsock wrote:
I can get to all of the sites listed above, and in most cases get plenty of info off of them. Most of the flash visuals on these, and many other sites, are awful anyway.


All this tells me is that YOU choose not to enjoy most Flash content.  Fine.  So YOU don't have to install the Flash plugin (but I'm guessing you did for your desktop/laptop browsers despite not like most of the content).

All people want is a choice - not Apple deciding for them.  The consumer should not be the victim of a long running dispute between Apple and Adobe:

Apple switched to the TrueType font format to stop having to pay Adobe.

Adobe yanked Premiere off the Mac platform when Apple's Final Cut took over the market.

Apple and Adobe went head to head on Light Room and Aperture.

Adobe took a long time before porting apps over to OS X (and Quark didn't).

The FLV format has almost completely killed the QT MOV format.

What's really ironic about all this is that YouTube is almost 100% FLV videos. You can't play them through the iPhone Safari browser. But Apple put a YouTube application on the iPhone from day one so that people could see Flash content.

Flash content doesn't really bother Apple. They just want control of it.  As many have said, this likely has to do with Flash acting as its own OS to play games or applications without going through the app store. 

(And an ongoing pissing contest with Adobe.)

[For full disclosure, most of that is cut and paste from the best comment I've seen yet on this dispute.  The words are not mine, but they do reflect what I've been saying for a while now.]
Amazon pulls Macmillan titles [eBook and bound book] due to price conflict -- confirmed

I would have used the word hypocrite instead of old dog, but Amazon, being the largest paper book retailer can make life hard for publishers. Which is more likely? (1) this is a direct response to Amazon undercutting iTunes prices in their MP3 music store, or (2) the iPad is late to the game and this is the best way to challenge for market share? 

"So when Steve Jobs said that Apple's and Amazon's prices would be the same, he was almost certainly referring to the $12.99 to $14.99 e-book pricing originally rumored by the New York Times – not the $9.99 price that Amazon customers have been enjoying so far. Funny how Jobs, the man who once refused to grant the music labels' request for variable pricing on digital music so that Apple could maintain a low fixed $0.99 price per track, is suddenly the best friend of a new breed of content owners. Guess the old dog just learned a new trick, eh?"
vansmack wrote:
Amazon pulls Macmillan titles [eBook and bound book] due to price conflict -- confirmed

I would have used the word hypocrite instead of old dog, but Amazon, being the largest paper book retailer can make life hard for publishers. Which is more likely? (1) this is a direct response to Amazon undercutting iTunes prices in their MP3 music store, or (2) the iPad is late to the game and this is the best way to challenge for market share? 

"So when Steve Jobs said that Apple's and Amazon's prices would be the same, he was almost certainly referring to the $12.99 to $14.99 e-book pricing originally rumored by the New York Times – not the $9.99 price that Amazon customers have been enjoying so far. Funny how Jobs, the man who once refused to grant the music labels' request for variable pricing on digital music so that Apple could maintain a low fixed $0.99 price per track, is suddenly the best friend of a new breed of content owners. Guess the old dog just learned a new trick, eh?"


amazon "capitulates"

you know. . .i think amazon overplayed their hand against a far bigger fish in macmillan.  if macmillan thinks they can get people to buy their books for $12.99, then, as the publisher, that's what they can ask for.  amazon doesn't want to pay their price, reacted, and got bit. 
Venerable wrote:
amazon "capitulates"

you know. . .i think amazon overplayed their hand against a far bigger fish in macmillan. 


I'm not sure it was MacMillan that eventually made Amazon switch (after all, we all knew that if Apple was going to agree to $14.99 then everyone else was going to follow suit.

There was a lot of backlash from authors that caught Amazon off-guard.  Many authors backed the publisher on this one (a lot of them were not MacMillan authors) and said they would remove their books from Amazon if they kept up this stance.

Either way, the consumer loses and there will be as little competition among ebook prices as their is for digital music despite their being absolutely no additional overhead from one digital copy to the next.
vansmack wrote:
vansmack wrote:
Got wrote:
it doesn't even have multi-touch.


Well, it doesn't have Google supported multitouch, but it's hackable and Google won't block it when the hackers add it.  Apple's patent is the only reason why the Nexus doesn't have multitouch.


And if you needed further proof of this theory:

Euro spec Nexus One Does Multitouch



Nexus One Software Update Enables Multitouch
vansmack wrote:
There's nothing short of vitriol over on Engadget.  Even the fanboi's hate it…


They've actually shut down the comment section for a little while because people were getting out of hand….
vansmack wrote:

Either way, the consumer loses and there will be as little competition among ebook prices as their is for digital music despite their being absolutely no additional overhead from one digital copy to the next.


yes and no. . .i say no because if the new model allows for the price of an ebook to vary, then those who can wait may end up paying a lower price anyway.  or, as one of my favorite economists points out,

"But where the economics gets really interesting is considering the book supply portfolio and the demand for specific titles over time. That?s where the dynamic pricing flexibility of the agency model is welfare-creating ? it can make Amazon, Macmillan, Macmillan?s authors, and consumers better off relative to the equilibrium with wholesale pass-through pricing, and what?s makes that possible is price discrimination. …  So what?s the ?new equilibrium?? Retailers and publishers will evolve and adapt as technologies and consumers do, but will it involve content as loss leader, authors contracting with Amazon and disintermediating publishers, or something else. One thing we know is that the Internet has created lots of new ways to price discriminate, and ebooks may be susceptible to that pricing model too, to the benefit of all parties."

mind you, this is under the assumption that e-book pricing will be done dynamically- i get that an ebook, is an ebook, is an ebook; however, much like the absurd retail prices for cd's, the value of a book is largely wrapped up in the content and not the publishing.  i doubt that amazon (and soon to be google) will, in the long run, simply stand by and let apple dictate the terms of the market; amazon, for one, simply has a different perspective on selling goods.  it's amazon being able to convince publishers (or authors) that apple's pricing scheme isn't that favorable for them or customers.

Adobe CTO reponds to apple and its "magical device." 

"Engaging with ideas and information also means ensuring there is an open ecosystem and freedom to view and interact with the content and applications a user chooses. This model of open access has proven to be more effective in the long term than a walled approach, where a manufacturer tries to determine what users are able to see or approves and disapproves individual content and applications. We strongly believe the Web should remain an open environment with consistent access to content and applications regardless of your viewing device."
Venerable wrote:
or, as one of my favorite economists points out,


Your favorite economist wrote that entire articel without once mentioning competition (CTRL+F if you don't believe me) - and that's the crux of what I'm saying (and it's exactly the problem I've had with iTunes from the beginning).

With the agency model, all retailers will be bound to the same formula (a high cost when it first comes out, lowering in 6 months, even further when the paperback comes out).  That's not how it is now with regular books, so why should it be with the new medium?  The day the book comes out, there is a tremendous amount of compeitition between bricks and mortars and online retailers for those eager fans.  If they all have the same agency model and we have no choices, how is that better for the consumer? 

If Amazon chooses to sell books as a loss leader to sell more of it's devices, then why shouldn't it be allowed to do so?  Apple argued one way when they had market share (mp3 players) and is now arguing the opposite because they are late to market (eReader).  Again, only the consumer is guaranteed to lose in this one.
vansmack wrote:

If Amazon chooses to sell books as a loss leader to sell more of it's devices, then why shouldn't it be allowed to do so?  Apple argued one way when they had market share (mp3 players) and is now arguing the opposite because they are late to market (eReader).  Again, only the consumer is guaranteed to lose in this one.


i don't disagree with you about whether or not amazon should be able to sell ebooks differently; but until amazon, as the retailer, is able to convince either the publisher or the author that their way is better, the publisher will choose the best option for themselves (and, presumably, for who they represent).  i do wonder, though, even if amazon agrees to "price" books at the contract rate, if they won't simply continue selling ebooks at a lower price and just take the loss (nevermind that this could be construed as a monopolistic ploy to undercut a new competitor).  what the article i linked to posited was that the customer will still come out ahead by paying lower prices, publishers will make more money, which will then be passed on to writers and apple and amazon will also increase their revenue.  now, when bricks-and-mortar stores close, and everyone has a kindle, an ipad or whatever google will call theirs, then come back to me about the ebook pricing schemes.

as for competition, if the ebook, when it is first released, costs $17.99, and the hardback costs $25.00, there's an immediate savings of $7 for the consumer, on every book.  if you want something now, i.e., demand is high, then, under competitive pricing schemes, suppliers should be able to price a good higher in order to maximize profits but not reduce demand (equilibrium).  that's how a market works.  of course, in reality, these prices aren't set by the market, but by contracts between retailers and suppliers so that each are guaranteed a certain amount of money per transaction.  further, if the dynamic pricing models are accurate, if you wait until demand cools off, online prices could still drop whilst the book in the store would still remain the same…..saving the consumer even more.  this already goes on between amazon and bricks-and-mortar stores since amazon has lower overhead costs and is able to take losses on products to gain market share.

this isn't necessarily an apple vs amazon issue, rather, this is the publishing world playing two competitors off each other to try to maximize their profits.  you can be mad at apple all you want for stifling competition or whatnot, but if apple is willing to give the publishers/suppliers a higher piece of revenue, then that's what they'll do.  then, when people stop buying ebooks at $17.99, and wait for prices to come down, prices will come down. . .

Venerable wrote:
what the article i linked to posited was that the customer will still come out ahead by paying lower prices, ….


as for competition, if the ebook, when it is first released, costs $17.99, and the hardback costs $25.00, there's an immediate savings of $7 for the consumer, on every book…. 

of course, in reality, these prices aren't set by the market, but by contracts between retailers and suppliers so that each are guaranteed a certain amount of money per transaction. 

…..saving the consumer even more. 


then, when people stop buying ebooks at $17.99, and wait for prices to come down, prices will come down. . .


Obviously, you have no idea how the current market for eBooks works.  Stop saying the consumer will be paying less when the current rate is much less than the proposed increase.

Currently, Amazon, the Sony Store and Barnes and Noble sell the vast majority of new releases, best sellers and still under copyright older eBooks for $9.99.  On the rare occassion you'll see a book for $12.99.  Almost never do you see an ebook for $15.99, let alone $17.99.

Well, not until Apple entered the arena and told the publishers that they were willing to start at $14.99 and go up to a "certain percentage below the list price of new release hard cover books" - or the agency model we are looking at now.  This is not the consumer paying less, this is the consumer paying more because they found a device manufacturer with some clout willing to play their game.  I'm not arguing the concept of price elasticity (I get that), I'm arguing that the application of a fixed price elasticity scheme is damaging to the consumer because it is in fact, fixed. 

And it will take a lot to convince me that the costs for producing a paper book are the same as producing an ebook.  If that were truly the case, I could walk into Borders right now and take any book off the shelf that didn't have copyright protection and walk out without paying a dime.  This, however, I can do with an eBook.  Millions of the them.
GOOGLE is said to be developing a tablet based on Chrome.  Maybe they'll get it right.  I do think the world needs an easy-to-use tablet.  Just not one that's a defunctionalized Iphone.

I only ask that apple adopt bluray already so I can go along with my pirating.