Mac news from outside the reality distortion field
Steve Jobs' latest creation drew big crowds; why can't his competitors manage the same magic? And isn't it time for Apple to show who can think big inside besides Jobs?
Can anyone copy Apple's commandments?
Measured by its contribution to Apple's (AAPL) bottom line, the launch of the iPad last weekend — with its attendant media frenzy and lines of customers snaking around city blocks and suburban malls — was not a particularly big deal.
Let's look at the most optimistic scenarios. Even if the initial enthusiasm for the device doesn't wear off. Even if no serious performance or production issues emerge. Even if Apple sells the 6-plus million iPads in 2010 that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have predicted — estimates, we might add, that are considerably higher than the Street's consensus of 3 million to 4 million. Even if the demand for more memory and access to AT&T's network manages to push the average selling price to $650. Even if all those things come to pass, the $3.9 billion revenue stream the iPad would generate in 2010 doesn't mean that much to the $50 billion company Apple has become.
Apple can sell $3.9 billion worth of Macs in a single quarter, and nearly twice that in iPhones.
But measured almost every other way, the iPad is a very big deal indeed — not just to Apple, but to the whole computer industry.
Apple CEO Steve Jobs saw an opportunity to create a third mobile screen — more than a smartphone, less than a laptop — and he seems to have succeeded where everybody else, including Bill Gates, failed.
It's probably too early to say whether the device will prove to be a runaway hit like the iPod (250 million sold) and iPhone (45 million) before it, or a upscale niche product like the Macintosh (U.S. PC market share: 7.4%). Die-hard Apple fans could well account for the bulk of the more than 300,000 customers who bought iPads on Saturday.
But we do know that it's not another below-the-radar "hobby" like Apple TV.
And more important, we know that Apple still has what it takes to imagine, design, build and deliver on schedule and at an affordable price a jewel-like piece of computer technology that inspires consumer lust.
There ought to be some soul searching going on right now among Apple's competitors. For this is not the first time the company has picked up a discredited idea and created not just a successful product, but a whole new industry. There were MP3 players before the iPod. There were smartphones before the iPhone. And there were plenty of tablet computers before the iPad, even if they did run Windows.
Certainly building something like this is not an easy thing to do. It requires world-class design teams, dependable supply chains, impeccable quality control, first-rate marketing, an army of high-maintenance developers and the foresight to build a tightly integrated software environment in which all the parts — software, hardware, retail, networking — fit seamlessly together.
Every other computer and software company can claim to own pieces of that chain. Microsoft (MSFT) has well-integrated operating system and application suite. Sony (SNE) has the hardware and software designers, as well as the stores. Dell (DELL) and HP (HPQ) can turn out devices quickly and know how to appeal to consumers. But somehow none of that is enough to transform an industry again and again and again.
To do that requires, to paraphrase Jobs' favorite Wayne Gretzky quote, skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.
By the few accounts have leaked out of Apple's tightly sealed PR machine, the iPad would appear to be Steve Jobs' baby. First there were the reports that Jobs was pouring all his attention on the iPad, even while he was on medical leave, rejecting design after design until he was fully satisfied. He is said to have told friends and colleagues that the device was the "most important thing" he has ever done.
But as always when credit for a new product — no matter how undue — goes to Apple's high-profile CEO, the issue of his succession arises.
COO Tim Cook and the rest of Apple's executive team have persuaded Wall Street that they can run the company — and run it well — even when Jobs is out of commission. But will they be able to dream up the next iPad when he is gone?
Or will it fall to someone we've never heard of — a couple of guys or gals in a garage, perhaps — to show us the way?
See also:
[Follow Philip Elmer-DeWitt on Twitter @philiped]
The iPad is just another shiny toy. Nothing more, it's just a toy. Something to be played with for a while, then replaced with a real computing device. I'll stick with my netbook.
Sheepp
Baaah, Ipad.
Baaahh, Ipad.
Let's all rush to get an over-sized ipod touch. Wooooh!
With no flash, multitasking or anything else besides being an oversized ipod.
Only an idiotic Apple FANBOY would write this garbage.
Hmmm lets see Apples HISTORY: 1) Overprice the average consumer out of the market (i.e charge 5 times as much) 2) Talk down to lowly people that don't own an 'Apple' 3) Make EVERYTHING PROPRIETARY 4) Attack Microsoft after you get your butt handed to you by the new geeks on the block
Let's put it this way… if Microsoft & Dell came out with something as flawed and limited as the iPad the view would be completely different.
Just look at the criticisms of Netbooks (significantly more functionality, half the price).
Apple is good at creating demand for something that people didn't realize they wanted. There is status associated with this product, which generates interest.
That being said, I have two words for the fanboys: APPLE NEWTON
If the rest of the industry were just as smart. Apple wouldn't exist.
Apple haters. One day you might realise the truth. The computer industry welcomes suckers who continue to buy their mediocre products, which consistently don't meet user expectations. How dumb are you?
Interesting how some people came up with their own pad-like device with a few innovative approaches thrown in, and a price tag less than that of iPad too! http://www.geekblogger.org/2010/02/notion-ink-adam-smartpad-price-and.html
On the note about the iPad and how much money it will make Apple: 300,000 units sold the first day The average person will probably pay for 5 apps within the first week with the average price being, lets say, $1.50. Apple gets 30% commission on the sale of an app. So, when you multiply it all out, that's $675,000 in the first week of the iPad being in circulation that Apple makes on the sale of apps. The App store is the money machine….not the sale of the iPad itself.
I think people write their opinions against Apple's iPad device because they believe they have been short-changed on features like phone, Flash, multi-tasking, and printing capabilities even though their intentions were not to buy one in the first place.
Apple could have included all the bells and whistles, but wisely chose not to on this first generation product. They don't want to give any hint to the consumers' perception that the iPad is to replace their laptop line. Perhaps this is their biggest concern of possible cannibalization. Companies with near nil or no product line comparable to Apple's line can risk adding all the bells and whistles to their iPad-like devices. But the greater risk for these companies will be, will the consumer buy their Tablets and Slates over Apple's iPad.
Apple also wants to keep the price affordable, which is an understandable issue in this present economy. People don't want to dole out money for nothing. People who want it will buy it. It's that simple.
With the 300,000 iPad purchases on the first day behind them, Steve Jobs and company can breathe a sigh of relief that their strategy to "streamline" iPad was the right decision at this time.
There are enough key features on iPad to keep the user occupied and yet not too busy. There is a delicate balance of hardware and software features between the iPod, iPhone, iPad, iBook, and iMac to facilitate proper usage and navigation among these devices. It's a heck-of-a fine line to come up with a product line such as this and still maintain a yearly revenue base of $50 billion. It's absolutely phenominal! Go Apple!
No one should copy Apple's commandments… they should come up with their own game changers. Stop think of copying and start thinking towards self-innovation.
Folks talk about the devices, but the reality is that Apple is a software company. And it is a viable software company because it has its own computer language.
Here is a cute thought experiment: Make a list of all these supposed "competitors" for Apple in the gadget market. Sony, Nokia et al.
Now next to each company, write the names of three applications which you know of that allow you to do useful things on a daily basis.
You'll be able to do it with microsoft, and Apple. After that, it gets very, very hard to do.
Sony? What is their killer app?
Nokia? You what?
What are the three best Android apps, and why? Who knows?
Read Full Article »