Sure they plan ahead, but the multitasking in the upcoming 4.0 still doesn't need a dual-core CPU.
Doesn't need, but would benefit from.
Multi-core is useful for parallel processing
Multitasking on multi-core or multi-CPU systems is parallel processing.
and the OS is clearly not designed with that kind of use in mind
No, the OS is clearly designed with this very use in mind. iPhone OS *is* OS X. The iPhone supports multithreading and multitasking and parallel processing, and includes all assortment of features like CoreAnimation and CoreImage, etc., which benefit greatly from parallel processing.
Additionally, iPhone OS 4 is said to support Grand Central Dispatch, which is intricately involved in parallel processing.
It's designed for battery life and portable media consumption.
And what better way to decode media and preserve power than to send tasks to multiple cores or processing units, thereby decreasing the amount of time it takes for a given task to complete?
All that said, the article is a huge stretch, and is almost certainly incorrect, but not for the reasons you state.
Which Slashdot are you reading? There is no shortage of posts claming that no one will buy an iPad, and will buy netbooks instead. The initial poster of this very thread claimed in this thread that this delay is just a marketing gimmick (look at the subject) and that the iPad's sales have dropped so bad that this was just to make the iPad look like something people actually want, etc.
Sure, there are some level-headed geeks here who claim that it's underpowered for them, but should still be great for most other people, but there's certainly no shortage of outright iPad detractors who called it a failure from the moment it was announced all the way through to today, in spite of facts to the contrary.
Bull. The main reason is $$$$. Making the iProducts "more appealing" or "more stable" or whatnot is only an excuse, an afterthought at the best.
A common view, but utterly wrong and ignorant of reality. Apple makes far more money on Macs, iPods and iPhones than they do on their online stores. If their stores can increase sales of hardware even a modest amount (say, 2%), then the stores will have generated more revenue and profit in hardware sales than they make directly on the music and apps themselves.
But it's not a modest amount. The iPhone, for example, easily sells many multiple times more due to the App Store than it would have without it.
Not to play semantics, but "late April" is not a "date".
But you *are* playing semantics. sopssa's point was that Apple wasn't delaying anything, because they didn't make any initial statement to begin with. Late April and late March are so different that there's no way to claim that there was no delay, which is exactly what sopssa claimed.
Stock has not been a major issue.
I never said it was a major issue, I said it had an effect. And it has.
Some stores have run out, but then gotten more a day or two later.
Exactly. In other words, some people walked into an Apple Store, and were unable to walk out with an iPad. This, by its very definition, means there's an upper limit to the number of sales which is being bumped up against. This is especially relevant as the topic was about the number of sales daily compared to those on the launch day, when stock was significantly higher than it is now.
At any rate I don't know if Apple has any supply issues or if this is just marketing, and neither do you -- but If I had to guess, I'd guess its probably just marketing.
You're absolutely wrong that this is simply marketing. It would be absurd for Apple to deliberately not have enough iPads (or hold them back in warehouses) for the sole purpose of making it look like demand is super high, because this would mean lost sale after lost sale. It would also mean that Apple is deliberately under producing (or under selling).
This absurdity would be doubly compounded by the delay to international markets. Why would Apple then parlay lost US sales into delayed foreign sales?
To be sure, there would be some benefit to have the buzz be "ooh, look, demand is so high that Apple can't keep up with it!", but to sacrifice actual sales for such hype would not only be absurd, but also illegal. Apple's shareholders would not allow 1/3rd of a quarter's sales to be completely vanish for a little bit of hype.
And contrary to common belief here on Slashdot, Apple doesn't live on empty hype. They *do* benefit from hype, but from hype that is backed up by reality. It's far more effective to have the hype of being unable to keep up with demand because demand is actually high, than it is to have it hyped up, but demand actually be low. If Apple tried the latter, the iPad would get a short-term media boost, but the market would clobber it in the long run.
There's two possibilities: It's marketing or apple *failed* to gauge the market and organize their production chain effectively.
Or they are producing them as fast as they can, and that's just not fast enough.
They've had other product launches exceeding a million units sold in the first week, so this quantity of iPad's is easily something they could handle.
Which Taiwanese factory do you know of that can churn out iPads fast enough? We're talking IPS LCDs, large glass multitouch surfaces, custom SoC, high capacity batteries (that aren't simply a bunch of AA cells shrink-wrapped together), high capacity, high speed flash memory, etc.
And they are also having to ramp up production of the 3G iPad, so units of those are accumulating for their launch.
Given everything you just said about Apple, which do you think is more likely: They dropped the ball and didn't handle the launch intelligently, or they're doing the smart thing now and trying to increase demand?
Why would they have to do something like you are suggest in order to increase demand, when demand already exceeds production?
The simple fact that far too many slashdotters can't grasp is that people actually want iPads. You clearly haven't been to an Apple Store over the past week. They are packed with people gathered around the iPads.
Hmm. *Looks at the 6 terminal windows open to all the various departmental servers*.
All residing in a GUI.
Mature people argue about the best tool for a job or function. Childish people declare a particular tool "the best."
Ah yes, the "everyone who agrees with me is mature, everyone who disagrees with me is childish" argument.
He didn't say GUIs where "the best", he said that those CLI-ers of the day that put down the GUI for being a toy or a gimmick, etc., were wrong, and tied that into the topic at hand. I didn't see any childishness in his post.
It's just that Apple locks you out from using your device and restricts you to their App Store so they can milk even more money from you.
The reason for the app store is not primarily as a revenue source. It's to make the iPhone (and iPod touch and, now, iPad) more appealing. The same thing is true for the iTunes Music Store in relation to the iPod.
I considered this, but it's just not likely. I mean, I can't see why they'd want it.
Yet the fact is that they *do* want it. So you can either adjust your assumptions and accept reality (even if you are unable to understand why things are like they are), or you can pretend, like a sizable portion of Slashdot has done, that the iPad is a failure, facts be damned.
It's only interesting that just today, along with this news announcement, was the first time when we (as in Europeans) even heard about it or when EU operators even announced iPad coming and its release dates.
Except that's not true. Apple announced that the iPad would begin worldwide availability late April.
Yes, there really was no announcement on release date before Apple said they will be delaying it. Marketing at its finest.
No, they really did. Your post is ignorance at its finest.
And the last interesting point - iPad sales dropped down to ~10% after first day sales.
I assume you mean down to about 10% per day, which is a number much lower than I've heard, but regardless of the specifics, this is exactly what always happens. There's the initial rush (including pre-orders from a month ago), then things settle down to a more sustainable level of demand.
There's also the little matter of Apple not being able to keep the iPad fully stocked, which places an upper limit on sales numbers.
Instead of trying to spin reality completely backwards, why not admit that the iPad isn't the dud you and those who mod you up thought it would be? What's wrong with admitting the truth? Is your technological self-esteem so insecure that it must be propped up by hiding reality lest... Lest what? Will your Windows PC or Ubuntu netbook or Android tablet serve you any less well if you admit that there are many other people out there that prefer the iPad to *your* device of choice?
Apple - PR and Advertising.
And profitability and shipping millions of products per year. Apple is the fifth largest PC maker in the US, and that includes businesses which skew much more heavily towards Windows PCs. Even then, Apple sells 8% of all computers in America.
That does not support your "PR and Advertising" smoke and mirrors claim. There's substance to back up their flair. Unlike your incessant posting of ignorance on all things Apple.
(Not that I think RipCode is particularly relevant. If it's not installed out of the box, people are going to year that "YouTube doesn't work on the iPad", and either they'll care about that or they won't. If YouTube is a big deal to them, they won't buy the device, and if it's not, then they won't need RipCode.)
Except YouTube does work on the iPad (and iPhone).
Any feature not currently provided by the iPad is unnecessary, until such time as that feature gets introduced, at which point it is unique and revolutionary. SJRDF.
Please quote where I used the word "unnecessary" or anything similar.
You obviously are not part of the Apple Collective or you would see the wisdom in only allowing 1 user and no guest account.
Clearly you are not part of the "Apple Collective", as you don't see the wisdom. It's not to goad people into buying their own iPad. It's for two reasons, and two reasons only:
1. It would complicate the system. Yes, I know you and most of the people reading this would have no problem with it, but for the average person, that would be something that gets in the way. Yes, I know you can probably imagine a way to have it off by default, but enabled via a preference, etc., etc., but Apple doesn't do things like that. More on this below. 2. Apple hasn't gotten around to it.
#2 may appear to contradict #1, but just like Copy and Paste and multitasking, if Apple can come up with a unique way to enable this feature that does not cause usability problems, they very well might do it. However, unlike Copy and Paste, and multitasking, multi-user does not seem like it'd be much of a priority. iPhone OS is a fully capable multi user OS (it's OS X).
If you want multi user, I suggest putting in a feature request to Apple. If enough people ask, they will do it. I just don't think, even if everyone reading this who wants multi user asks for it, the numbers will be enough. But it's always worth a shot.
iPad only has a single user and not even a guest account, do you really want to let your kids, friends or random people to use it access all your browser history, photos, emails and such?
My biggest concern isn't kids/friends/etc - as long as there exists the possibility that it could get lost or stolen, I'm going to be fanatical about keeping it free of personal info. Now, if it were possible to encrypt the system volume, THEN I might start trusting it with my data, and in that case multiple accounts would make sense. Otherwise, it really doesn't make a difference.
The iPhone 3GS encrypts the filesystem. That's why securely erasing it is instant. I don't know if the iPad does the same, but it seems likely.
You can set a 4 digit PIN, and have it erase itself after 10 failed attempts. You can also erase it remotely using MobileMe (although this won't be as easy on the WiFi-only iPad, but once someone connects to WiFi, instant erase).
I humorously wonder if H264 will suddenly announce being 100% royalty free for lifetime now, or will fade into obscurity.
While I do hope for the former, the latter is not likely. Even ignoring the media standards which use h.264, there is the matter of hardware acceleration. This is critical for mobile devices, and pretty damned important even for desktops.
In a way, I think this move may be done specifically to prod the MPEG-LA to commit to freely license h.264, but ultimately it's really just the only logical thing for Google to do. Sitting on VP8 does them no good, and they are not in any industry where owning a codec provides an opportunity for commercializing it. At least by opening it, the codec may come to some use, and if it becomes widely adopted (this doesn't seem likely) then Google will at least have some visibility in the codec market. And regardless of what comes of VP8, Google will have garnered some good will from the open source community at large.
Did you really just say that? Number of items sold is a "poor metric" in terms of how popular each company is?
Standard Apple fan tactic - redefine market share to mean something else. Let's see:
Yes, I did. And I backed it up. Every other indicator favors the iPhone.
And like I said:
"Or put differently, do you not think there's a single handset make who wouldn't jump at the chance to trade places with Apple? There isn't."
That really sums it up right there. Which mobile maker do you think would not trade their entire phone division for Apple's phone division?
If Apple weren't the market leader, why do you think every single other handset maker would trade places with them in a heartbeat?
And now I'm going to argue that the Amiga is the market leader in computers. Sure, it doesn't sell well or anything like that, but that's a poor metric. People were always satisfied with them, so I'm going to claim it's the best, therefore that's what counts, and it's market leader. You can't argue with that, can you?
Name a single metric by which Amiga leads the market? World's greatest "nostalgic has-been" doesn't count. Name a single PC maker that would trade places with them. Hey, maybe Psystar!
If I buy a PC preloaded with Ubuntu, am I now tinkering?
No. But the hardware manufacturer tinkered with Ubuntu to get it onto the PC (or maybe not, with Ubuntu and PCs, but with handsets, this is exactly what must happen, and exactly what Android specifically promotes).
With iPhone OS, however, other hardware makers are *not* allowed to tinker with the OS to get it to run on their handsets.
Buying a shrink-wrapped product and using it without modification is never tinkering, period. This isn't being broken out to placate me personally. It is simply the proper uses of the words.
I think you're abusing the tinkering label to make your point, and I think you've gone so far with it as to strain logic.
No, because I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I've also already stated that if you want to break it out into a separate category, I don't mind.
I never said, "end-user tinkerability", I said "tinkerability". And the ability for HTC, Motorola, etc., to ship Android handsets stems *directly* from Android's tinkerability. If you want to break it out into a separate category, however, like I've said more than once, feel free.
The inherent philosophy behind the iPhone is, and has always been, 'the iPhone user experience'. Aka 'my way or the highway'. This specifically precludes using anything other than the stuff shipping out of Cupertino. If the new iPhone switches to TCP over Carrier Pigeon, you have no choice but to accept it, should you wish to stay on that platform. With Android, this cannot be - and this is intrinsic in the very concept.
Yes, exactly. You can tinker with Android and make your own phone, that uses TCP over Carrier Pigeon, if you are so inclined. But there's nothing inherent in iPhone OS that precludes Apple choosing Avian TCP.
This changes everything.
The only thing it changes is that it allows third parties to fracture the Android market. And this *ALL* stems from their ability to tinker with the system. Some can make hardware keyboards, some have flashes on their cameras, etc.
How So? It argues that since he paid way more for the hardware than he should have, that he might as well run the OS that's is licensed to run on it, otherwise spend half the price and be done with it.
That doesn't make any sense. Why buy the Mac in the first place if that was his opinion? In fact, it *wasn't* his opinion. He stated that Mac hardware is both beautiful and high quality. Running Windows on a Mac doesn't change the hardware, so if he truly thinks Windows is better, why wouldn't he run that, and have both the hardware he prefers *and* the OS he prefers?
OR he could work in a the Graphics industry and is limited to what software he can use, etc.
Danger! I detect starry eyes! Well, it's that or out of date information.
Except for the fact that it happens to be true.
The truth is that Android phone sales are on a rocketship headed straight up. If they stay on pace Android handsets are expected to surpass the iPhone in 2011 or so.
If bacteria continued their growth at the same rate during their early growth phase, the entire universe would be made of bacteria in no time.
"Starry Eyes" indeed.
So Apple's iPhone is ahead yes
In other words, I'm correct.
Is it technically accurate to say that iPhone is "dominating"? Arguably yes, but to use that to justfy everything else you wrote is laughable in light of the competitions performance. It's also funny to hear about iPhone "dominating" when it's getting it's ass thorougly kicked by Symbian and RIM.
The iPhone is dominating them as well. Units shipped is a poor metric. Apple is by far the most popular smart phone in terms of usage, in terms of apps, in terms of customer satisfaction, in terms of profitability. You name it.
The iPhone is sexy and mostly functional but it is not the final word in smartphone development, it's not even close.
You're right. Year after year Apple finds a way to improve upon the smart phone, surpassing their last product.
However, it's pretty undeniable that Apple is the market leader. The only metric they don't have covered is most units sold.
Or put differently, do you not think there's a single handset make who wouldn't jump at the chance to trade places with Apple? There isn't.
The only real competition that Apple has right now is Google, and Google isn't competing on quality, but quantity, and they're presently even losing *that* battle. When they're not, that'll be an interesting milestone, but also largely irrelevant as Apple will still be the premier handset maker.
This is because Google doesn't care about quality or handset profitability. What they care about is ad revenue, and to get that, they need the *broadest* customer base they can get, not the *best* customer base, or the most directly *profitable* customer base, just numbers. A game which they are still losing at, btw.
Since Apple never intended their OS for use on non-Apple hardware, and since Google never intended Android to be exclusive, these are indeed inherent traits, by the definition of the word.
This is part of tinkerability. You can put Android on whatever you want, including a PC.
But choice, in hardware and software, is not something inherent to Android but not to iPhone. Choice in hardware manufacturers is. If you want to break that out from tinkerability, I have no problem with that, but it doesn't really change anything.
As far as the bulk of your post discussing CDMA, that's not inherent to the iPhone, it's simply an implementation decision. There's nothing about the iPhone design or philosophy that precludes building a CDMA handset. In fact, the iPhone was originally offered to Verizon, to run on their CDMA network. But they turned it down.
No, several Android phones have larger and/or higher resolution screens (in DPI).
Please quote where I said they didn't.
I'm guessing when iPhone uses OLED in a couple of generations you will think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Only if OLED has advanced to a point where it's sufficiently superior to LCD. This is the canard that the anti-Apple brigade always likes to trot out, that "something is bad until Apple does it, then it's good". But the case is usually, "something is bad, which is why Apple doesn't do it. Then, when that thing is no longer bad, Apple does it."
Apple does not increase the resolution partly because their GUI API is braindamaged, so iPhone applications are not resolution independent because of this.
You are clueless as to the way Cocoa Touch applications work. Apple has not increased the resolution because they want apps to work exactly the same across all iPhones, excepting speed improvements and additional features. Having a screen that's 10% wider than another, and one that's 20% taller, etc., does not fit Apple's model for consistency.
Notice they took the trouble of using a display with exactly 2x the horizontal and vertical resolution for the iPad
Except it's not.
and people still think compatibility mode sucks.
This is because the iPad is not simply a "big iPhone that can't make calls" like so many jackasses seem to think it is. The larger screen and higher resolution leads to entirely different UIs, and a UI designed for the iPhone will be inferior to a UI designed specifically for the iPad. This also undermines you point that the only reason Apple keeps the same resolution is because apps aren't resolution independent. It's because a screen that's even a little bit wider or taller in pixel count will benefit from apps designed specifically for that resolution.
Cellphones don't use CCDs for the camera dummy. They use CMOS sensors because they are lower power, cheaper, smaller, and have a higher pixel density. Nice if you want to claim your camera has a zillion megapixels.
Bearing absolutely *zero* affect on what I wrote, which is that megapixel count is largely irrelevant as it concerns picture quality.
I think you are severely mistaken and the Android platform will overtake the iPhone, just like the IBM PC clones overtook the Commodore 64, Apple II, and whatever. The push for this is nearly irresistible.
Stated with absolutely *zero* reasoning. Android will be on more handsets, but as a platform, Android has a long ways to go in order to supplant iPhone OS, and Android's potential to surpass iPhone is by no means "irresistible".
People said the same thing about the iPod vs Plays For Sure. They said the same thing about iPhone vs Windows Mobile. And vs Palm. Who knows, maybe some day they will be right, but that day is not any time soon, so for now, I have the luxury of using not only the *best* mobile platform, but also the *most popular*.
The one thing that Android has, at its core, that the iPhone does not, is tinkerability. One of the fundamental design goals behind Android (after Google's acquisition of it) is that it be open (mostly) and hacker/tinker friendly. Cameras, folders, screens, multitasking, etc. None of these things are inherent to Android, but not to iPhone.
I'd broaden this to 'choice'. You can choose what software you run on the Android AND you get a choice in who manufactures the device it runs on as well. There are multiple price/feature/network options to mix and match.
You spent considerable time pointing out how the platforms differ from device to device a few posts back, and somehow this fact eluded you? How so?
Neither of those things are inherent to Android, but not to iPhone.
On the iPhone, you not only get to choose which software to run, but you have a much wider array of choices. You also have a choice of hardware (although much more limited, to be sure). But that's not what I said, I said (which you quoted, yet somehow this fact eluded you. How so?):
"The one thing that Android has, at its core, that the iPhone does not, is tinkerability."
Yet iPhone dominates Android in the market. Why do you suppose that is?
Marketing mostly.... your average consumer has NO IDEA what android is.
If Android were superior, people would know. But it's not. Not for them. It's only superior for those that place a high value on the ability to tinker with their phone. Which is to say, statistically pretty much no one.
There are plenty of "Droid Does" ads, and it's not like they hide the Android phones in the back room at the phone stores. To blame Apple's success on marketing is a cop out. If Apple didn't have quality products to back up their marketing, their products would have faded away as a fad by now.
And, even if the usability were the same, Apple has marketing that the open world usually lacks. I know that Android phones are getting marketed well (at least Droid on TV and Nexus One online) but they've got nothing on Apple commercials and hype. That'll hurt the open market.
Marketing doesn't play into it nearly as much as some people seem to think. In order for a marketing campaign to be successful, you have to have a compelling product, and for the overwhelming majority of people, Open Source systems just aren't up to the challenge. The most notable exception is Firefox, and Firefox has had zero television or radio marketing (and very limited web marketing). In fact, both IE and Chrome have out-marketed Firefox, yet Firefox has taken significant share from IE and still leads Chrome.
If Apple's success were primarily a marketing success, they would have been a flash in the pan. In order for successfully marketed product to have staying power, it has to have inherent appeal.
Add to that the possibility of having multiple competing open devices (droid vs eris vs nexus one etc) while close has one, and the sales of any one open device will be lower than the one closed device, again making things look bad.
That's why Apple outsells HP, Dell and Acer? That's why people always say Apple is the number 4 or 5 PC maker in the US, as opposed to always pointing out that they only make up about 8-10% of the market, while MS has the other 90+%?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they plan ahead, but the multitasking in the upcoming 4.0 still doesn't need a dual-core CPU.
Doesn't need, but would benefit from.
Multi-core is useful for parallel processing
Multitasking on multi-core or multi-CPU systems is parallel processing.
and the OS is clearly not designed with that kind of use in mind
No, the OS is clearly designed with this very use in mind. iPhone OS *is* OS X. The iPhone supports multithreading and multitasking and parallel processing, and includes all assortment of features like CoreAnimation and CoreImage, etc., which benefit greatly from parallel processing.
Additionally, iPhone OS 4 is said to support Grand Central Dispatch, which is intricately involved in parallel processing.
It's designed for battery life and portable media consumption.
And what better way to decode media and preserve power than to send tasks to multiple cores or processing units, thereby decreasing the amount of time it takes for a given task to complete?
All that said, the article is a huge stretch, and is almost certainly incorrect, but not for the reasons you state.
For sites that only offer flash video.
Who said it was a failure?
Which Slashdot are you reading? There is no shortage of posts claming that no one will buy an iPad, and will buy netbooks instead. The initial poster of this very thread claimed in this thread that this delay is just a marketing gimmick (look at the subject) and that the iPad's sales have dropped so bad that this was just to make the iPad look like something people actually want, etc.
Sure, there are some level-headed geeks here who claim that it's underpowered for them, but should still be great for most other people, but there's certainly no shortage of outright iPad detractors who called it a failure from the moment it was announced all the way through to today, in spite of facts to the contrary.
Bull. The main reason is $$$$.
Making the iProducts "more appealing" or "more stable" or whatnot is only an excuse, an afterthought at the best.
A common view, but utterly wrong and ignorant of reality. Apple makes far more money on Macs, iPods and iPhones than they do on their online stores. If their stores can increase sales of hardware even a modest amount (say, 2%), then the stores will have generated more revenue and profit in hardware sales than they make directly on the music and apps themselves.
But it's not a modest amount. The iPhone, for example, easily sells many multiple times more due to the App Store than it would have without it.
Not to play semantics, but "late April" is not a "date".
But you *are* playing semantics. sopssa's point was that Apple wasn't delaying anything, because they didn't make any initial statement to begin with. Late April and late March are so different that there's no way to claim that there was no delay, which is exactly what sopssa claimed.
Stock has not been a major issue.
I never said it was a major issue, I said it had an effect. And it has.
Some stores have run out, but then gotten more a day or two later.
Exactly. In other words, some people walked into an Apple Store, and were unable to walk out with an iPad. This, by its very definition, means there's an upper limit to the number of sales which is being bumped up against. This is especially relevant as the topic was about the number of sales daily compared to those on the launch day, when stock was significantly higher than it is now.
At any rate I don't know if Apple has any supply issues or if this is just marketing, and neither do you -- but If I had to guess, I'd guess its probably just marketing.
You're absolutely wrong that this is simply marketing. It would be absurd for Apple to deliberately not have enough iPads (or hold them back in warehouses) for the sole purpose of making it look like demand is super high, because this would mean lost sale after lost sale. It would also mean that Apple is deliberately under producing (or under selling).
This absurdity would be doubly compounded by the delay to international markets. Why would Apple then parlay lost US sales into delayed foreign sales?
To be sure, there would be some benefit to have the buzz be "ooh, look, demand is so high that Apple can't keep up with it!", but to sacrifice actual sales for such hype would not only be absurd, but also illegal. Apple's shareholders would not allow 1/3rd of a quarter's sales to be completely vanish for a little bit of hype.
And contrary to common belief here on Slashdot, Apple doesn't live on empty hype. They *do* benefit from hype, but from hype that is backed up by reality. It's far more effective to have the hype of being unable to keep up with demand because demand is actually high, than it is to have it hyped up, but demand actually be low. If Apple tried the latter, the iPad would get a short-term media boost, but the market would clobber it in the long run.
There's two possibilities: It's marketing or apple *failed* to gauge the market and organize their production chain effectively.
Or they are producing them as fast as they can, and that's just not fast enough.
They've had other product launches exceeding a million units sold in the first week, so this quantity of iPad's is easily something they could handle.
Which Taiwanese factory do you know of that can churn out iPads fast enough? We're talking IPS LCDs, large glass multitouch surfaces, custom SoC, high capacity batteries (that aren't simply a bunch of AA cells shrink-wrapped together), high capacity, high speed flash memory, etc.
And they are also having to ramp up production of the 3G iPad, so units of those are accumulating for their launch.
Given everything you just said about Apple, which do you think is more likely: They dropped the ball and didn't handle the launch intelligently, or they're doing the smart thing now and trying to increase demand?
Why would they have to do something like you are suggest in order to increase demand, when demand already exceeds production?
The simple fact that far too many slashdotters can't grasp is that people actually want iPads. You clearly haven't been to an Apple Store over the past week. They are packed with people gathered around the iPads.
Hmm. *Looks at the 6 terminal windows open to all the various departmental servers*.
All residing in a GUI.
Mature people argue about the best tool for a job or function. Childish people declare a particular tool "the best."
Ah yes, the "everyone who agrees with me is mature, everyone who disagrees with me is childish" argument.
He didn't say GUIs where "the best", he said that those CLI-ers of the day that put down the GUI for being a toy or a gimmick, etc., were wrong, and tied that into the topic at hand. I didn't see any childishness in his post.
While your critique is valid, it's fairly obvious he meant "appliance".
It's just that Apple locks you out from using your device and restricts you to their App Store so they can milk even more money from you.
The reason for the app store is not primarily as a revenue source. It's to make the iPhone (and iPod touch and, now, iPad) more appealing. The same thing is true for the iTunes Music Store in relation to the iPod.
I considered this, but it's just not likely. I mean, I can't see why they'd want it.
Yet the fact is that they *do* want it. So you can either adjust your assumptions and accept reality (even if you are unable to understand why things are like they are), or you can pretend, like a sizable portion of Slashdot has done, that the iPad is a failure, facts be damned.
It's only interesting that just today, along with this news announcement, was the first time when we (as in Europeans) even heard about it or when EU operators even announced iPad coming and its release dates.
Except that's not true. Apple announced that the iPad would begin worldwide availability late April.
Yes, there really was no announcement on release date before Apple said they will be delaying it. Marketing at its finest.
No, they really did. Your post is ignorance at its finest.
And the last interesting point - iPad sales dropped down to ~10% after first day sales.
I assume you mean down to about 10% per day, which is a number much lower than I've heard, but regardless of the specifics, this is exactly what always happens. There's the initial rush (including pre-orders from a month ago), then things settle down to a more sustainable level of demand.
There's also the little matter of Apple not being able to keep the iPad fully stocked, which places an upper limit on sales numbers.
Instead of trying to spin reality completely backwards, why not admit that the iPad isn't the dud you and those who mod you up thought it would be? What's wrong with admitting the truth? Is your technological self-esteem so insecure that it must be propped up by hiding reality lest... Lest what? Will your Windows PC or Ubuntu netbook or Android tablet serve you any less well if you admit that there are many other people out there that prefer the iPad to *your* device of choice?
Apple - PR and Advertising.
And profitability and shipping millions of products per year. Apple is the fifth largest PC maker in the US, and that includes businesses which skew much more heavily towards Windows PCs. Even then, Apple sells 8% of all computers in America.
That does not support your "PR and Advertising" smoke and mirrors claim. There's substance to back up their flair. Unlike your incessant posting of ignorance on all things Apple.
(Not that I think RipCode is particularly relevant. If it's not installed out of the box, people are going to year that "YouTube doesn't work on the iPad", and either they'll care about that or they won't. If YouTube is a big deal to them, they won't buy the device, and if it's not, then they won't need RipCode.)
Except YouTube does work on the iPad (and iPhone).
Any feature not currently provided by the iPad is unnecessary, until such time as that feature gets introduced, at which point it is unique and revolutionary. SJRDF.
Please quote where I used the word "unnecessary" or anything similar.
You obviously are not part of the Apple Collective or you would see the wisdom in only allowing 1 user and no guest account.
Clearly you are not part of the "Apple Collective", as you don't see the wisdom. It's not to goad people into buying their own iPad. It's for two reasons, and two reasons only:
1. It would complicate the system. Yes, I know you and most of the people reading this would have no problem with it, but for the average person, that would be something that gets in the way. Yes, I know you can probably imagine a way to have it off by default, but enabled via a preference, etc., etc., but Apple doesn't do things like that. More on this below.
2. Apple hasn't gotten around to it.
#2 may appear to contradict #1, but just like Copy and Paste and multitasking, if Apple can come up with a unique way to enable this feature that does not cause usability problems, they very well might do it. However, unlike Copy and Paste, and multitasking, multi-user does not seem like it'd be much of a priority. iPhone OS is a fully capable multi user OS (it's OS X).
If you want multi user, I suggest putting in a feature request to Apple. If enough people ask, they will do it. I just don't think, even if everyone reading this who wants multi user asks for it, the numbers will be enough. But it's always worth a shot.
iPad only has a single user and not even a guest account, do you really want to let your kids, friends or random people to use it access all your browser history, photos, emails and such?
My biggest concern isn't kids/friends/etc - as long as there exists the possibility that it could get lost or stolen, I'm going to be fanatical about keeping it free of personal info. Now, if it were possible to encrypt the system volume, THEN I might start trusting it with my data, and in that case multiple accounts would make sense. Otherwise, it really doesn't make a difference.
The iPhone 3GS encrypts the filesystem. That's why securely erasing it is instant. I don't know if the iPad does the same, but it seems likely.
You can set a 4 digit PIN, and have it erase itself after 10 failed attempts. You can also erase it remotely using MobileMe (although this won't be as easy on the WiFi-only iPad, but once someone connects to WiFi, instant erase).
I humorously wonder if H264 will suddenly announce being 100% royalty free for lifetime now, or will fade into obscurity.
While I do hope for the former, the latter is not likely. Even ignoring the media standards which use h.264, there is the matter of hardware acceleration. This is critical for mobile devices, and pretty damned important even for desktops.
In a way, I think this move may be done specifically to prod the MPEG-LA to commit to freely license h.264, but ultimately it's really just the only logical thing for Google to do. Sitting on VP8 does them no good, and they are not in any industry where owning a codec provides an opportunity for commercializing it. At least by opening it, the codec may come to some use, and if it becomes widely adopted (this doesn't seem likely) then Google will at least have some visibility in the codec market. And regardless of what comes of VP8, Google will have garnered some good will from the open source community at large.
Did you really just say that? Number of items sold is a "poor metric" in terms of how popular each company is?
Standard Apple fan tactic - redefine market share to mean something else. Let's see:
Yes, I did. And I backed it up. Every other indicator favors the iPhone.
And like I said:
"Or put differently, do you not think there's a single handset make who wouldn't jump at the chance to trade places with Apple? There isn't."
That really sums it up right there. Which mobile maker do you think would not trade their entire phone division for Apple's phone division?
If Apple weren't the market leader, why do you think every single other handset maker would trade places with them in a heartbeat?
And now I'm going to argue that the Amiga is the market leader in computers. Sure, it doesn't sell well or anything like that, but that's a poor metric. People were always satisfied with them, so I'm going to claim it's the best, therefore that's what counts, and it's market leader. You can't argue with that, can you?
Name a single metric by which Amiga leads the market? World's greatest "nostalgic has-been" doesn't count. Name a single PC maker that would trade places with them. Hey, maybe Psystar!
If I buy a PC preloaded with Ubuntu, am I now tinkering?
No. But the hardware manufacturer tinkered with Ubuntu to get it onto the PC (or maybe not, with Ubuntu and PCs, but with handsets, this is exactly what must happen, and exactly what Android specifically promotes).
With iPhone OS, however, other hardware makers are *not* allowed to tinker with the OS to get it to run on their handsets.
Buying a shrink-wrapped product and using it without modification is never tinkering, period. This isn't being broken out to placate me personally. It is simply the proper uses of the words.
I think you're abusing the tinkering label to make your point, and I think you've gone so far with it as to strain logic.
No, because I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I've also already stated that if you want to break it out into a separate category, I don't mind.
I never said, "end-user tinkerability", I said "tinkerability". And the ability for HTC, Motorola, etc., to ship Android handsets stems *directly* from Android's tinkerability. If you want to break it out into a separate category, however, like I've said more than once, feel free.
The inherent philosophy behind the iPhone is, and has always been, 'the iPhone user experience'. Aka 'my way or the highway'. This specifically precludes using anything other than the stuff shipping out of Cupertino. If the new iPhone switches to TCP over Carrier Pigeon, you have no choice but to accept it, should you wish to stay on that platform. With Android, this cannot be - and this is intrinsic in the very concept.
Yes, exactly. You can tinker with Android and make your own phone, that uses TCP over Carrier Pigeon, if you are so inclined. But there's nothing inherent in iPhone OS that precludes Apple choosing Avian TCP.
This changes everything.
The only thing it changes is that it allows third parties to fracture the Android market. And this *ALL* stems from their ability to tinker with the system. Some can make hardware keyboards, some have flashes on their cameras, etc.
How So? It argues that since he paid way more for the hardware than he should have, that he might as well run the OS that's is licensed to run on it, otherwise spend half the price and be done with it.
That doesn't make any sense. Why buy the Mac in the first place if that was his opinion? In fact, it *wasn't* his opinion. He stated that Mac hardware is both beautiful and high quality. Running Windows on a Mac doesn't change the hardware, so if he truly thinks Windows is better, why wouldn't he run that, and have both the hardware he prefers *and* the OS he prefers?
OR he could work in a the Graphics industry and is limited to what software he can use, etc.
Yeah, that's probably it... /rollseyes
"Yet iPhone dominates Android in the market."
Danger! I detect starry eyes! Well, it's that or out of date information.
Except for the fact that it happens to be true.
The truth is that Android phone sales are on a rocketship headed straight up. If they stay on pace Android handsets are expected to surpass the iPhone in 2011 or so.
If bacteria continued their growth at the same rate during their early growth phase, the entire universe would be made of bacteria in no time.
"Starry Eyes" indeed.
So Apple's iPhone is ahead yes
In other words, I'm correct.
Is it technically accurate to say that iPhone is "dominating"? Arguably yes, but to use that to justfy everything else you wrote is laughable in light of the competitions performance. It's also funny to hear about iPhone "dominating" when it's getting it's ass thorougly kicked by Symbian and RIM.
The iPhone is dominating them as well. Units shipped is a poor metric. Apple is by far the most popular smart phone in terms of usage, in terms of apps, in terms of customer satisfaction, in terms of profitability. You name it.
The iPhone is sexy and mostly functional but it is not the final word in smartphone development, it's not even close.
You're right. Year after year Apple finds a way to improve upon the smart phone, surpassing their last product.
However, it's pretty undeniable that Apple is the market leader. The only metric they don't have covered is most units sold.
Or put differently, do you not think there's a single handset make who wouldn't jump at the chance to trade places with Apple? There isn't.
The only real competition that Apple has right now is Google, and Google isn't competing on quality, but quantity, and they're presently even losing *that* battle. When they're not, that'll be an interesting milestone, but also largely irrelevant as Apple will still be the premier handset maker.
This is because Google doesn't care about quality or handset profitability. What they care about is ad revenue, and to get that, they need the *broadest* customer base they can get, not the *best* customer base, or the most directly *profitable* customer base, just numbers. A game which they are still losing at, btw.
With the iPhone you have zero choice of hardware.
This is not true.
You can choose Apple or nothing
This is true.
Since Apple never intended their OS for use on non-Apple hardware, and since Google never intended Android to be exclusive, these are indeed inherent traits, by the definition of the word.
This is part of tinkerability. You can put Android on whatever you want, including a PC.
But choice, in hardware and software, is not something inherent to Android but not to iPhone. Choice in hardware manufacturers is. If you want to break that out from tinkerability, I have no problem with that, but it doesn't really change anything.
As far as the bulk of your post discussing CDMA, that's not inherent to the iPhone, it's simply an implementation decision. There's nothing about the iPhone design or philosophy that precludes building a CDMA handset. In fact, the iPhone was originally offered to Verizon, to run on their CDMA network. But they turned it down.
Apple makes beautiful, high quality hardware (for which you pay a premium), and mediocre software at best.
Yet the fact that you don't primarily run Windows on it argues otherwise.
No, several Android phones have larger and/or higher resolution screens (in DPI).
Please quote where I said they didn't.
I'm guessing when iPhone uses OLED in a couple of generations you will think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Only if OLED has advanced to a point where it's sufficiently superior to LCD. This is the canard that the anti-Apple brigade always likes to trot out, that "something is bad until Apple does it, then it's good". But the case is usually, "something is bad, which is why Apple doesn't do it. Then, when that thing is no longer bad, Apple does it."
Apple does not increase the resolution partly because their GUI API is braindamaged, so iPhone applications are not resolution independent because of this.
You are clueless as to the way Cocoa Touch applications work. Apple has not increased the resolution because they want apps to work exactly the same across all iPhones, excepting speed improvements and additional features. Having a screen that's 10% wider than another, and one that's 20% taller, etc., does not fit Apple's model for consistency.
Notice they took the trouble of using a display with exactly 2x the horizontal and vertical resolution for the iPad
Except it's not.
and people still think compatibility mode sucks.
This is because the iPad is not simply a "big iPhone that can't make calls" like so many jackasses seem to think it is. The larger screen and higher resolution leads to entirely different UIs, and a UI designed for the iPhone will be inferior to a UI designed specifically for the iPad. This also undermines you point that the only reason Apple keeps the same resolution is because apps aren't resolution independent. It's because a screen that's even a little bit wider or taller in pixel count will benefit from apps designed specifically for that resolution.
Cellphones don't use CCDs for the camera dummy. They use CMOS sensors because they are lower power, cheaper, smaller, and have a higher pixel density. Nice if you want to claim your camera has a zillion megapixels.
Bearing absolutely *zero* affect on what I wrote, which is that megapixel count is largely irrelevant as it concerns picture quality.
I think you are severely mistaken and the Android platform will overtake the iPhone, just like the IBM PC clones overtook the Commodore 64, Apple II, and whatever. The push for this is nearly irresistible.
Stated with absolutely *zero* reasoning. Android will be on more handsets, but as a platform, Android has a long ways to go in order to supplant iPhone OS, and Android's potential to surpass iPhone is by no means "irresistible".
People said the same thing about the iPod vs Plays For Sure. They said the same thing about iPhone vs Windows Mobile. And vs Palm. Who knows, maybe some day they will be right, but that day is not any time soon, so for now, I have the luxury of using not only the *best* mobile platform, but also the *most popular*.
The one thing that Android has, at its core, that the iPhone does not, is tinkerability. One of the fundamental design goals behind Android (after Google's acquisition of it) is that it be open (mostly) and hacker/tinker friendly. Cameras, folders, screens, multitasking, etc. None of these things are inherent to Android, but not to iPhone.
I'd broaden this to 'choice'. You can choose what software you run on the Android AND you get a choice in who manufactures the device it runs on as well. There are multiple price/feature/network options to mix and match.
You spent considerable time pointing out how the platforms differ from device to device a few posts back, and somehow this fact eluded you? How so?
Neither of those things are inherent to Android, but not to iPhone.
On the iPhone, you not only get to choose which software to run, but you have a much wider array of choices. You also have a choice of hardware (although much more limited, to be sure). But that's not what I said, I said (which you quoted, yet somehow this fact eluded you. How so?):
"The one thing that Android has, at its core, that the iPhone does not, is tinkerability."
Yet iPhone dominates Android in the market. Why do you suppose that is?
Marketing mostly.... your average consumer has NO IDEA what android is.
If Android were superior, people would know. But it's not. Not for them. It's only superior for those that place a high value on the ability to tinker with their phone. Which is to say, statistically pretty much no one.
There are plenty of "Droid Does" ads, and it's not like they hide the Android phones in the back room at the phone stores. To blame Apple's success on marketing is a cop out. If Apple didn't have quality products to back up their marketing, their products would have faded away as a fad by now.
And, even if the usability were the same, Apple has marketing that the open world usually lacks. I know that Android phones are getting marketed well (at least Droid on TV and Nexus One online) but they've got nothing on Apple commercials and hype. That'll hurt the open market.
Marketing doesn't play into it nearly as much as some people seem to think. In order for a marketing campaign to be successful, you have to have a compelling product, and for the overwhelming majority of people, Open Source systems just aren't up to the challenge. The most notable exception is Firefox, and Firefox has had zero television or radio marketing (and very limited web marketing). In fact, both IE and Chrome have out-marketed Firefox, yet Firefox has taken significant share from IE and still leads Chrome.
If Apple's success were primarily a marketing success, they would have been a flash in the pan. In order for successfully marketed product to have staying power, it has to have inherent appeal.
Add to that the possibility of having multiple competing open devices (droid vs eris vs nexus one etc) while close has one, and the sales of any one open device will be lower than the one closed device, again making things look bad.
That's why Apple outsells HP, Dell and Acer? That's why people always say Apple is the number 4 or 5 PC maker in the US, as opposed to always pointing out that they only make up about 8-10% of the market, while MS has the other 90+%?