iPad Without Pixel Qi, the Apple iPad fails

[Demas]

Originally Posted by scottjl

ok. there have been plenty of MID type devices which have been around, but none of them have been breakaway successes. why?

It's not the ecosystem, because the iPod was a success before iTunes and iPhone was a success BEFORE the App Store came along, it was mostly branding (with a dash of pricing - an the American inability to discern total costs in the face of subsidy that doesn't happen in the rest of the world for the iPhone).

For the iPad it WILL be the ecosystem (which I acknowledge above before your post), but you missed my point which wasn't "The iPad offers you nothing over MIDs" but that "People are largely deceiving themselves as to why they want the iPad specifically." If it's for couch surfing, toilet reading, etc. all of that functionality exists in MIDs (which by the way will work with iTunes for media, remember it's a standalone cross platform media player/organizer/store that can run independently on a desktop just fine).

If it's for the app store, and Apple brand, the the iPad is your only choice but very few declare that as why they want or need the iPad. So it's a case of Apple telling them, "This is what the iPad can do." and them saying, "Oooh, I want that." NOT people saying, "This is what I want to do" FIRST and "Oooh, MIDs can do that... and so can the iPad."

[scottjl]

hmm. so the past few years of people saying they wanted an apple tablet device to watch movies, read books, listen to music, play games on, etc. doesn't count? people saying for the past 2 years they like the ipod touch but wish it was bigger doesn't count?

and, no offense, no one on here can speak "for the people" for what they need, want, can do or can't do. you certainly haven't polled me.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Demas

"People are largely deceiving themselves as to why they want the iPad specifically." If it's for couch surfing, toilet reading, etc. all of that functionality exists in MIDs (which by the way will work with iTunes for media, remember it's a standalone cross platform media player/organizer/store that can run independently on a desktop just fine).

I think people know what products are capable of, and what they want from them, in general. I think people who want the iPad specifically to couch surf, toilet read, just aren't interested in MIDs that don't offer the ease of use, the familiarity, and the quality design that they think Apple provides. And I think those people who love the App Store see the iPad as another device that can let them use all those cool Apps they've already bought, plus the new ones designed for a bigger screen.

I just don't buy the "deceiving themselves" argument for any product. Although I notice it mostly comes up when discussing Apple-and specifically with "other people" who use Apple products

[Demas]

Originally Posted by scottjl

hmm. so the past few years of people saying they wanted an apple tablet device...

I think you just proved my point. None of the functionality you mentioned is missing from off-brand MIDs but people needed Apple to say they needed that functionality. And again, the iPad isn't a tablet, it's an Apple-branded PMP/MID. Even if you use apps as the argument, WinMo based PMP/MIDs have millions of apps by comparison, which doesn't suddenly turn them into tablets.

Originally Posted by kjk

... that they think Apple provides.

Once again, branding, my very point.

I just don't buy the "deceiving themselves" argument for any product.

http://www.npd.com/lps/Netbook/

"Even though nearly 60% of all netbook owners say they purchased their netbook because of its portability, almost 60% say they use it solely in the home."

I also gave the example of the iPhone sales increase despite the total cost of the phone and plan INCREASING just because the initial outlay was a little bit less. You give consumers a little too much credit.

As for trying to discredit by making it about an Anti-Apple stance, that's unbecoming particularly when I have several Apple products.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Demas

http://www.npd.com/lps/Netbook/

"Even though nearly 60% of all netbook owners say they purchased their netbook because of its portability, almost 60% say they use it solely in the home."

Portability within my home just as important as portability out of it. I have a Macbook that rarely leaves my home, but is used everywhere around it.

And do I give consumers too much credit? Maybe. Or maybe I just don't presume to judge them on what they decide to spend their money on.

[Demas]

The semantic game is cute but you can read the survey, the portability discussed is "did you buy this to use outside of the home" (although you will have to search- not too hard- for the full copyright-infringing report online).

As for the credit response, you realize insisting a "lack" of judgment upon the public is just as much a judgment as to their capability? The only difference is I've got empirical data.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Demas

The semantic game is cute but you can read the survey, the portability discussed is "did you buy this to use outside of the home" (although you will have to search- not too hard- for the full copyright-infringing report online).

To me its not a semantics game. To me, its a question of whether you are judgemental of what you think other people want from a product, and why they buy them, or whether you just don't presume to make such judgements.

Claiming people are "deceiving themselves" because they don't just go buy MIDs just seems a bit odd to me.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Demas

As for trying to discredit by making it about an Anti-Apple stance, that's unbecoming particularly when I have several Apple products.

Sorry, I did not mean to try to discredit it by making it an Anti-Apple stance. My point is that Apple products, because of their marketing, branding, and pricing, tends to bring out these types of discussions more so than, say, an Archos product.

The difference is how one perceives their marketing, branding, and pricing. Some people insist that all that separates Apple's products from everyone else's is branding and marketing and pricing. I just disagree with that assessment.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by scottjl

one important thing the ipad has that none of these devices ever will, is the itunes store.

First, I think that monopoly should be banned by regulators. Supporting of a monopolistic hardware/content scheme is just plain wrong. Why would you support any company tying proprietary software, with own hardware and lock-in the whole thing with their proprietary and closed overpriced content store.

Second, itunes is only for people who can't bother pirate stuff. Even among ipod owners, about 80% do NEVER buy anything on itunes. People just pirate stuff or rip their own CDs/DVDs. Yet, the remaining 20% of ipod owners that did buy at least 1 song in itunes are still a large amount of people because apple literally sold hundreds of millions of ipods.

Do you pride yourself for buying overpriced locked-in contents on the itunes? For someone who understands how to register and use online forums, I wouldn't consider it to be very hip for someone like you to actually support the itunes scheme.

Originally Posted by scottjl

with the ipad you're not only getting a capable media player

Give me a break. Apple products are the absolute worst media players in the history of consumer electronics.

No DivX, no XviD, no Flac, no Ogg Vorbis, no Mpeg2 (DVD format), no Windows Media video/audio (format of all other DRMed content stores than itunes), no Flash support (format of 95% of online video streaming), no Mass Storage support (forces you to install bloatware itunes to even use!!!), no extendable memory slots (every other product on the market supports SD cards), locked access to apps and it actually bricks jailbroken devices.. I could go on.

Originally Posted by scottjl

you're also getting an extensive audio and video catalog to purchase content for your device. it's the reason ipods sell so well, the store is so well established.

That is just wrong. Most ipod owners pirate all of their music (either BitTorrent or knowing someone who can transfer pirated music). The apple products sell because they become fashion symbols for some reason. It's all about trend, it's all about design and external aestetics and about a thirst for gadgets that somehow apple has managed to capture through viral marketing.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Charbax

For someone who understands how to register and use online forums, I wouldn't consider it to be very hip for someone like you to actually support the itunes scheme.

Guess I'm not very hip. I buy music from iTunes, always have.

[dmaul1114]

Huh? At least for music, iTunes prices are pretty fair. About the same as most other stores, though they have fewer sales than say Amazon. And all the music is DRM free. Video is a different matter. So at least for music I see no scheme and nothing wrong with buying from them.

And discounting it's use to people because of Piracy is silly. I've never pirated anything, and never well. I've also bought very few MP3s as I prefer CDs, but I've never illegally downloaded a single song.

I think stealing digital content is the same morally as stealing a physical item with that content on it (i.e. pirate and album you might as well steal the CD). So for me when I buy a device to use digital content, having a big selection and good prices is key. That's why I went with the Kindle. Being in the US the Kindle store had the best selection and prices vs. the other options, and that was important to me since I won't pirate books.

So iTunes can still be a draw to a device--at least for decent human beings who don't just steal all their content.

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by Charbax

First, I think that monopoly should be banned by regulators. Supporting of a monopolistic hardware/content scheme is just plain wrong. Why would you support any company tying proprietary software, with own hardware and lock-in the whole thing with their proprietary and closed overpriced content store.

i think you need to look up your anti-trust laws. itunes is not a monopoly. popular, yes, monopoly, no. $1 for a song is overpriced? take it up with the music industry, who'd love even higher prices. apparently you haven't read the news articles for years.

Second, itunes is only for people who can't bother pirate stuff. Even among ipod owners, about 80% do NEVER buy anything on itunes. People just pirate stuff or rip their own CDs/DVDs. Yet, the remaining 20% of ipod owners that did buy at least 1 song in itunes are still a large amount of people because apple literally sold hundreds of millions of ipods.

source of facts? or are you just making this one up.

Do you pride yourself for buying overpriced locked-in contents on the itunes? For someone who understands how to register and use online forums, I wouldn't consider it to be very hip for someone like you to actually support the itunes scheme.

i'll have you know that i myself have purchased a few thousand cd's over the past decade and personally rip all of my music with LAME (because i like a higher quality than apple provides). i wouldn't consider myself "locked in" by any stretch of the imagination. same goes with DVD's. as soon as i purchase one i convert it over with Handbrake. again. no lock in as far as I can tell, and it's also not piracy (as much as the RIAA would like to prohibit it entirely).

Give me a break. Apple products are the absolute worst media players in the history of consumer electronics.

thanks for your opinion.

No DivX, no XviD, no Flac, no Ogg Vorbis, no Mpeg2 (DVD format), no Windows Media video/audio (format of all other DRMed content stores than itunes), no Flash support (format of 95% of online video streaming), no Mass Storage support (forces you to install bloatware itunes to even use!!!), no extendable memory slots (every other product on the market supports SD cards), locked access to apps and it actually bricks jailbroken devices.. I could go on.

no. please don't. i'm tired of listening to the same factless arguments over and over. you're right, apple's products don't support those formats. guess what, hasn't stopped them from selling millions has it? doesn't seem to be much of a hindrance does it?

That is just wrong. Most ipod owners pirate all of their music (either BitTorrent or knowing someone who can transfer pirated music). The apple products sell because they become fashion symbols for some reason. It's all about trend, it's all about design and external aestetics and about a thirst for gadgets that somehow apple has managed to capture through viral marketing.

so. anyone who owns an ipod is a pirate, and anyone who owns a sansa or zune isn't? good logic there.

when you come back with some facts instead of just ranting let me know.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Huh? At least for music, iTunes prices are pretty fair. About the same as most other stores,

lala.com is 10x cheaper (probably why apple wants to shut them down), last.fm, spotify and others are totally free to stream, napster/rhapsody and other offer unlimited music streaming for about $10 per month.

Out of $1 per song, 30% goes to Apple, 65% goes in the pockets of record companies and less than 5% goes in the pocket of the artists. That is absolutely NOT fair business! With an online based content service like itunes, there should be NO intermediaries, the artists should get the absolute bulk of industry revenues. What itunes does is enforce the old outdated scheme of intermediaries robbing artists and consumers of their money.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

all the music is DRM free.

Only recently apple got forced to un-drm their contents (to try avoiding anti-trust lawsuits), and there is an extra fee to purchase non-DRM on itunes last I checked, which probably means most people still buy DRMed versions on itunes.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

And discounting it's use to people because of Piracy is silly. I've never pirated anything, and never well. I've also bought very few MP3s as I prefer CDs, but I've never illegally downloaded a single song.

You are not representative of all people using the Internet. More than 50% of Internet bandwidth is used for BitTorrent transfers. More than half of ipod users are below 30 years old, they don't spend a dime on itunes, you can be sure of it. Apple makes all their revenues on selling hardware. ipod/iphone represents 60-70% of Apple's overall revenues (more than macbook/osx). itunes revenues for apple are less than 5% of their yearly revenues and probably that a lot of it covers bandwidth, infrastructure costs and taxes.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I think stealing digital content is the same morally as stealing a physical item (...) decent human beings who don't just steal all their content.

Decent human beings don't force people to use their proprietary hardware/software/content lock-ins, they don't make more than $3000 in revenues from a product that costs $150 to mass manufacture in China (the iphone), they don't take 95% of itunes/kindle revenues to intermediaries instead of giving 100% to authors/artists as digital distribution is supposed to.

[dmaul1114]

Meh, you're just a hater and ranting. On to the ignore list with you.

I'm no apple lover, never owned any of their products, but you're makign a lot of assumptions there, and just typical internet anti-apple rage, and making lame excuses to to try to justify piracy.

All companies are out to make as much money as possible. It's the whole point corporations. Apple is hardly alone there.

I buy content I enjoy and devices that work well for me to enjoy on. As long as I think the price is fair for what I get out of it, I don't give a crap where the money goes, how much the artist/author gets. If they didn't like it they shouldn't have signed the contract with the label or publisher and got better terms elsewhere or self distributed.

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by Charbax

lala.com is 10x cheaper (probably why apple wants to shut them down), last.fm, spotify and others are totally free to stream, napster/rhapsody and other offer unlimited music streaming for about $10 per month.

does lala.com offer the same catalog as itunes? no. and stream systems are not the same as owning your music. you're comparing two different things.

Out of $1 per song, 30% goes to Apple, 65% goes in the pockets of record companies and less than 5% goes in the pocket of the artists. That is absolutely NOT fair business! With an online based content service like itunes, there should be NO intermediaries, the artists should get the absolute bulk of industry revenues. What itunes does is enforce the old outdated scheme of intermediaries robbing artists and consumers of their money.

maybe you should take your complaint to the record companies, not apple.

Only recently apple got forced to un-drm their contents, and there is an extra fee to purchase non-DRM on itunes last I checked, which probably means most people still bought DRMed versions on itunes.

actually if you read up on the history of itunes, jobs was against DRM from the beginning but the only way he could get the record labels to go along with it was to add the DRM. jobs fought for years to remove the DRM and eventually won. apple was not "forced" to remove their DRM. again. check your facts.

You are not representative of all people using the Internet. More than 50% of Internet bandwidth is used for BitTorrent transfers. More than half of ipod users are below 30 years old, they don't spend a dime on itunes, you can be sure of it. Apple makes all their revenues on selling hardware. ipod/iphone represents 60-70% of Apple's overall revenues. itunes revenues for apple are less than 5% of their yearly revenues and probably that a lot of it covers bandwidth, infrastructure costs and taxes.

i'd hardly say you're representative of "all people using the internet" yourself. and again, you have no facts to back up any of your rants here.

Decent human beings don't force people to use their proprietary hardware/software/content lock-ins, they don't make more than $3000 in revenues from a product that costs $150 to mass manufacture in China (the iphone), they don't take 95% of itunes/kindle revenues to intermediaries instead of giving 100% to authors/artists as digital distribution is supposed to.

apparently you aren't aware of how corporations work. they are out to make money. plain and simple. and last i knew, no one forced me to buy an ipod, an iphone or any apple product.

plain and simple: don't like apple's products, then don't buy them. move on. the only thing you show us here is that you like to rant without facts to back up your opinions.