Why Apple's iTouch Tablet Will Become Its Flagship Product 107 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Digital content has been available for years, but the right vehicle to consume the content has been lacking. We still cut down trees and hand deliver newspapers to people's homes. That worked in 1900, but 2009? Are you kidding me? The iTouch Tablet is about to change society as we know it. The demand for this product is going to overwhelm Apple (AAPL).
Let’s connect the dots from the latest round of leaks, rumors and inferences regarding the Apple Tablet. In March, Reuters reported that Apple had ordered a substantial batch of 10 inch touchscreens from Taiwan to be delivered in Q3 of 2009. In April, the Wall Street Journal reported that Steve Jobs was actively involved in the development of the Tablet. In July, the China Times reported that Apple will debut their new product in October for $800 after agreeing to production deals with Foxconn, Wintek, and Dynapack. TheStreet.com is reporting that Apple will release a subsidized Tablet through Verizon (VZ). Then, in this week's earnings call, Apple management went out of their way to trash the netbook space but they refused to deny the coming Tablet, saying they will only release products that are ‘innovative and that they are proud of'. These are all reputable sources that seem to unveil the secrecy surrounding the pending product.
Will the tablet have a substantial impact on Apple’s core business? I see this device taking its place at the high end of the iPod family; it will be a larger version of the iPod Touch. This product won’t fall quietly into place however. The iTouch Tablet launch is primed to be the most significant in the history of Apple. The following four reasons provide support for the claim:
1) Apple Finally has an App Machine. Steve Jobs has mentioned that he has never seen anything like success of the App Store in his career. If he is saying that, then I’m saying that this 9.7 inch iTouch that has been designed to optimally utilize the apps will become the flagship Apple product. We are witnessing a transition in the way the Internet is used. Mobile content requires a tailor made user experience that is not efficiently delivered by the traditional website model. Although we have grown accustomed to navigating the Web by browsing websites on our PC, consumers are showing an affinity for the App Store model. Mobile Apps are designed for usability and the 1.5 billion downloads thus far from Apple’s App Store clearly demonstrate a user experience in high demand. The trend is in place that shows consumers will desire an app rather than visit a website. Perhaps we will one day see that apps are more popular than actual websites. The unspoken secret about the iPhone is that it wasn’t designed to become the ultimate App Store device. The screen is too small. The order of operations for the iPhone are phone first, iPod second, Apps third, and Internet browser fourth. This new iTouch is principally designed to take advantage of the App Store gaming, books, news, entertainment, social networking, etc...
2) Mobile High Speed Connectivity. Until now, a truly portable Internet device hasn’t been possible because of the scarce network availability. Verizon’s new Mi-Fi technology appears to be changing the landscape as it enables a Wi-Fi connection anytime and anywhere. It’s looking like this iTouch will mark the beginning of a relationship between Verizon and Apple. The anytime and anywhere connection will allow this product to serve as an up to the moment e-reader. By next year, we will all be wondering how the newspaper industry survived as long as it did with its outdated paper delivery model. The iTouch will replace newspapers, magazines, and books. Imagine a college student not having to lug around his $600 worth of textbooks each semester. Imagine not having to load up on magazines at the airport. The digitization of education and media has arrived. This is the first device that caters to digital readers on the go. Amazon’s (AMZN) black and white Kindle was such a poor attempt that it’s not even worth analyzing. Same goes for the netbook fad.
3) Free Communication. Why do I think the iTouch will be more significant than the iPhone? Because the trend of communication technology is being routed away from wireless cellphone carriers and towards the Internet. Through the use of Skype you can make phone calls over an Internet connection and through the use of Apple’s iChat you can communicate by video for free. There are no overage charges, there are no hidden fees, you just pay for your Internet connection and communicate at will. The rumors are swirling that the next generation iTouch will include a camera and a microphone thereby making this capability a reality for Apple customers.
4) No Carrier Exclusivity. There is no doubt that iPhone sales have suffered because of the exclusivity agreement between Apple and its carriers. In the United States there are millions of Verizon and Sprint (S) customers who would love to have the iPhone but don’t want to switch to AT&T (T). It appears that the iTouch will be openly available. All those people who wanted an iPhone but couldn’t make the carrier switch will flock to the iTouch Tablet. Apple will struggle to produce enough of these to meet the demand.
Being a member of the iPod family means that this new iTouch will be announced at the typical iPod refresh event during the first full week of September. I anticipate the euphoria of Steve Jobs being back on stage introducing a revolutionary new product will cause the stock to surge ahead of the unveiling. Seeing adults stand in line while wearing their pajamas in the early morning hours to purchase the first iTouch Tablet will cause the stock to react again in October. The conclusion is simple. Apple owns the tech revolution. The rise of the dot-coms got out of control at the beginning of the decade for all the right reasons but the infrastructure wasn’t ready to justify the digital transition. Now that the infrastructure is ready, society will embrace the iTouch Tablet in a way that might even surprise the visionary himself.
Disclosure: Long AAPL
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 107 comments:
better more expensive App. Running natively on a 10 in screen.
You should give some additional thought to where Apple might be able to go with a tablet, or perhaps a family of tablet computers. A tablet could become one piece of a more robust system.
Start with a 13" MacBook Pro or a MacBook Air to visualize the kind of overall quality I have in mind. Now make the lid detachable. When detached the lid becomes a tablet computer running the iPhone version of OS X with touch Keypad. When attached the computer runs the regular version of OS X with physical keyboard and ability to run all applications such as Photoshop, etc. Both versions of the OS can coexist and run simultaneously using virtualization. In other words, the detached lid works like a giant iPod Touch but morfs into a full-featured computer with the complete OS X when attached to the bottom unit and keyboard.
Connect the base to the lid with Bluetooth. Put some semiconductor storage in the lid and a big hard disk in the base. You'll need one of those non-user changeable long-life Apple batteries in each unit.
When riding in an airplane put the base in overhead storage and use the lid as a tablet on your tray table. Save files to disk wirelessly using Bluetooth.
Incorporate a pull-out bluetooth headset in the design for phone calls via Mi-Fi (or use an iPhone and access the internet with tethering).
So you're in a restaurant making a sales presentation to a client. The base (computer bottom) is in your briefcase alongside your chair. Your presentation is stored there on the hard disk. The presentation is to be displayed on the bright high res LED 1280 X1024 display on your tablet and sent from disk via Bluetooth. You are connected to the internet via tethering to your iPhone or MiFi. You will also use your iPhone as a remote control for the slide presentation.
A product like this could be sold in pieces. Buy the lid as a huge iPod Touch. Buy the base later with keyboard, hard disk, and SuperDrive to convert to a full fledged laptop. Buy an iPhone to get Internet tethering via 3G (or a Mi-Fi modem as your article suggests).
It is important that it be able to run iPhone Apps so it can piggy-back on the amazing App Store. But it wouldn't have to run that version of OS X exclusively thanks to virtualization.
I've read that Apple's guidelines for its ap developers advised them to write their code in a size-independent manner, presumably through an API that adjusts the ap's virtual screen to whatever size actual screen the ap is running on. It would have been silly of Apple not to have done this, and unthinkable for Jobs et al. not to have anticipated it.
One corroborative piece of analysis: why have a 10 inch screen? Because that's about what you need to read a page the size of a large paperback. These are usually 6x9 inches, length x width of course; the 10 inches is a diagonal measure. Depending on the aspect ratio, that will leave you a little less than 9 inches. A book has a margin; if you subtract that margin, many 6x9 books have pages with text about 8 inches high, perfect for reading the page on the reader at 100% size.
--Greg Bates
Will it run apps only or will it run OSX (Snow Leopard).
+ Apple "Many owners of netbooks will not be happy with their experience"
+ One of the objectives of Snow Leopard was to pare down the size as well as increase efficiency.
The next question is what chipset.
It is possible that the long delay is was to allow the development of their new in-house chipset. Couple this with a rocking GPU to make a "handset" that is almost as powerful as a MacBook (white model) and you will have a pretty incredible device.
I suppose they will start at $799. Hopefully they will go down a bit after 6 months.
This is not necessarily so or not necessarily to the extent you think.
Text based apps should scale without too much trouble. Other apps, if they are well designed, should already have facilities for dealing with with the issue of screen size. Programs should use global constants to determine display size that can be reset with a simple re-compile or even automatically set at startup as the program queries the device. One of the hallmarks of OSX is built in scaling.
Of course, real graphics programs might need to update the graphic base of its images to higher resolutions in order to achieve higher quality and save compute power of rescaling. But this is still not a major re-write as only the resources will be updated and the basic logic/computation part of the code will remain unchanged.
So there will be some costs, but not overwhelming.
On Jul 24 08:32 AM LuMoS wrote:
> Great article, but as far as the App-Store running on the tablet
> I believe you might be mistaken. Every app in the App-Store is currently
> developed to fit on the typical 3.5 inch touch-screen, not a 10 in.
> So in order for apps to run natively they'd have to be re-done or
> fixed to run on both versions. Which I doubt deva will have the time
> or patience to create apps for more than 1 device. Although it also
> opens up speculation as to wheather Apple will implement a Premium
> App-Store. In which case you might see those
> better more expensive App. Running natively on a 10 in screen.
The classic ipod was being phased out as it is with people flocking to the itouch. This is evident in the sales figure.
With the iphone revenues being recognized over a 8 quarter period and with a $99 entry point, assuming the tablet comes in Q4, the stock looks poised for a massive run-up in 2010. And Apple TV hasn't even caught on like it should yet.
On Jul 24 09:09 AM Roger Knights wrote:
> I agree that the iTablet will sweep the world and become the default
> e-book reader for most readers. But for heavy readers, the Kindle
> is better, because its e-ink is easier to read for long stretches
> and because there is no battery drain except when turning a page.
> I think it will continue to sell well.
Apple creates or relies upon confluences of events in the technological realm to meld various concepts together in new and meaningful ways. They are able to think and act multidimensionally, so that their products and services make sense, solve problems, improve life, and "just work." It's entirely likely that the forthcoming product will change our lives and our industries in ways most people can't even begin to imagine, but the folks at Apple have dreamed of these things for many years.
When someone at Apple pooh-poohs an existing product such as a netbook as "not worth their time," they really mean that they're working on something else that is worth their time! Given their track record (Apple II, Macintosh, Apple Store (retail), Apple Store (online), iPod, iTunes, iPhone, App Store...), would you doubt them? Would you expect less? They set the standards for the rest of the industry to follow. There are LOTS of people at cell phone manufacturers and service providers who are very worried about Apple's next moves right now. For consumers, that is a VERY GOOD THING.
Another shot across Amazon's bow is the recent entry of Barnes and Noble into the ebook market, particularly their excellent B&N App that allows iPhone/touch access to Google's 500K+ public domain titles.
Also, AT&T is poised to enter the ebook fray with a new color touch screen ereader scheduled for 2010.
If Apple's rumored device comes to fruition I have no doubt that Apple will dominate the ebook arena in short order, and I'm placing my "bets" accordingly.
As for the previous commentor who said it's time to short "APPL", good luck with that. You might consider going long AAPL (Apple Inc.) while you're shorting APPL, which apparenetly is the stock symbol of a pink sheet OTC stock called Appell Pete. Oh, and it's "adieu", not "adew".
You obviously don't get the significance of the app store (50,000 apps and 1.5 Billion downloads in just one year); integration with iTunes including wireless downloads, and the elegance of Apple's user friendly designs. Sure they're going to be copied. Microsoft built their business on copying. But betting against Apple is high risk investing to say the least. Read BurkPhoto's second post (above). He says it very well.
You are 100% correct.
On Jul 24 02:07 PM davesmall wrote:
> Reply to vloscomp who said, "The key point of this story is the infrastructure
> that will allow mobile devices (not just APPL devices) to connect
> to the internet. I am so happy that you chumps had been cheering
> APPL for the last 24 months, but it is time (by Oct) for me to bid
> adew to APPL. Device technology have been competitive market (ie
> US Robotics 56K modems, HP Calculators ...) and the shelf life of
> a device is probably about 12 months or less. iTouch has no barrier
> to a competitive "me too", therefore, APPL will see erosion in profit."
>
>
> You obviously don't get the significance of the app store (50,000
> apps and 1.5 Billion downloads in just one year); integration with
> iTunes including wireless downloads, and the elegance of Apple's
> user friendly designs. Sure they're going to be copied. Microsoft
> built their business on copying. But betting against Apple is high
> risk investing to say the least. Read BurkPhoto's second post (above).
> He says it very well.
I think the Apple rally could go on, I've stopped rolling up my puts though. Bought a Jan '10 $200 call for $2.96 the other day. I remember you said you bought in at $2. You still in those?
"iTune is also under heavy competition from Yahoo, Real Network, MySpace and a bla, bla ... more."
yuk snort haw. Seriously?
We often hear such whining from people who don't own an iPhone and can only imagine what the user experience is really like. Get an iPhone and prepare to have your eyes opened wide. Very wide. The typical reaction of a person who gets an iPhone for the first time is, "Wow! I didn't fully realize what I was missing."
My iPhone can have up to 132 apps installed at one time. I currently have about 100 installed. Out of the 50,000 or so available I suspect you too might be able to find 100 that you'd find useful. But you'll never know, will you?
You remind me of my son. When he was sixteen years old I put a note on the refrigerator door that read, "Why don't you leave home now while you still know everything?"
On Jul 24 04:49 PM vloscomp wrote:
> I don't get the significant of the apps store: there are 50,000 crappy
> apps that i do not want, and as far as 1.5 billions download, how
> many of those are profitable or useful?
$200 more than the consumer pays for it. AT&T is paying the
difference.
If Verizon does the same with an Apple tablet, Apple could
charge Verizon $1,000, while the consumer would pay $800.
Or, $900 and $700 respectively.
Nine hundred dollars in Apple's pocket for every tablet sold
would garner a higher profit margin than Apple can make
selling a $1,000 MacBook or $1,200 selling a 13" MacBook Pro.
The MacBook line has higher costs (larger screen, keyboard,
hard drive, DVD drive, separate touchpad, etc.) than a touch-
pad computer would have to build.
It would be a universal device. Education. Medicine. Business. Entertainment. Home automation. Communications.
Thanks for the kudos. I'll add that one of the remarkable things about this company is that they don't follow; they lead. They don't play by the "rules"; they make the rules. They know, culturally, the difference between a commodity market and a luxury market, and they choose to play predominately in the latter.
If anyone wants an idea of how good their stuff really is, without buying it, just mosey on over to InfoWorld.com and read Tom Yager's reviews of their hardware. As InfoWorld's Chief Technologist, he knows a thing or two about computers.
That said, if you want to know *first hand* what the Apple experience is like, then first visit the Apple store online, and then visit one of their stores if it's not too far out of the way for you. The experience is not unlike that you would encounter at a Lexus or Mercedes dealer, or Neiman Marcus, or a W hotel, or any top tier vendor of anything.
There really is a difference. They think differently, with strategic vision rather than with a bullying strategy. They think long-term, with grand plans that lead to multiplicative opportunities. In short, don't short them. We ain't seen nuthin' yet, folks!
On Jul 24 02:07 PM davesmall wrote:
> Reply to vloscomp who said, "The key point of this story is the infrastructure
> that will allow mobile devices (not just APPL devices) to connect
> to the internet. I am so happy that you chumps had been cheering
> APPL for the last 24 months, but it is time (by Oct) for me to bid
> adew to APPL. Device technology have been competitive market (ie
> US Robotics 56K modems, HP Calculators ...) and the shelf life of
> a device is probably about 12 months or less. iTouch has no barrier
> to a competitive "me too", therefore, APPL will see erosion in profit."
>
>
> You obviously don't get the significance of the app store (50,000
> apps and 1.5 Billion downloads in just one year); integration with
> iTunes including wireless downloads, and the elegance of Apple's
> user friendly designs. Sure they're going to be copied. Microsoft
> built their business on copying. But betting against Apple is high
> risk investing to say the least. Read BurkPhoto's second post (above).
> He says it very well.
"Given the high resolution screens on the iPod Touch and the iPhone, I'd bet the high res screen on an iTouch Tablet or iPad or whatever they'll call it will be high enough res to do the job of virtual ink as good as, or better than, the Kindle."
It isn't the lack of resolution that makes long-term (multi-hour) reading tiring on the eyes on an iPhone or iTablet, but the backlighting. A Kindle's screen isn't backlit, so it is readable without eyestrain for long periods of time.
"The Kindle is great, but it's a one-trick pony. Apple will release a general purpose device with much greater total utility."
I agree, which is why I said the iTablet will sweep the world, leaving only heavy duty readers for the Kindle. (In comments elsewhere on the Kindle I've argued that it needs to be more of a general-purpose device, and that Bezos's determination not to do so is a huge mistake.)
One way to address this would be to have the iPad (or whatever a larger touch based unit would be called) recognize and run current iPhone apps at the current display's resolution (either by scaling it to the full screen, or running in a window in the larger display), but allowing apps that scale their display properly to be flagged so that they take advantage of the larger display.
And, of course, there are probably good reasons that developers would want to update their apps, even if they weren't forced to. First, even a UI that scaled to a larger display properly might look 'wrong' if stretched to fill a larger display, so developers would probably have to, at the very least, redesign their UI to work well on both large and small displays. Given Interface Builder (Apple's UI building tool) this is pretty easy. The second reason for rewrites would be that the new platform would probably have new capabilities that developers would want to take advantage of. This is comparable to the iPhone 3.0 update.
So if I had to guess, an iPad would be able to run iPhone apps 'as is', so that it had access to the huge iPhone app library, but developers would have strong incentives to update their apps to take advantage of the new platform.
That is, unless Jobs decides that iPhone apps aren't good enough. :-) Odder things have happened. Remember, the iMac, which was incompatible with all existing Mac hardware, forcing everyone to update to USB.
On Jul 24 08:43 AM Roger Knights wrote:
> "Every app in the App-Store is currently developed to fit on the
> typical 3.5 inch touch-screen, not a 10 in."
>
> I've read that Apple's guidelines for its ap developers advised them
> to write their code in a size-independent manner, presumably through
> an API that adjusts the ap's virtual screen to whatever size actual
> screen the ap is running on. It would have been silly of Apple not
> to have done this, and unthinkable for Jobs et al. not to have anticipated
> it.
On Jul 24 01:07 PM vloscomp wrote:
> Time to short APPL .... (millions of screamers) The key point of
> this story is the infrastructure that will allow mobile devices (not
> just APPL devices) to connect to the internet. I am so happy that
> you chumps had been cheering APPL for the last 24 months, but it
> is time (by Oct) for me to bid adew to APPL. Device technology have
> been competitive market (ie US Robotics 56K modems, HP Calculators
> ...) and the shelf life of a device is probably about 12 months or
> less. iTouch has no barrier to a competitive "me too", therefore,
> APPL will see erosion in profit.
Great Article. Extremely thoughtful. But I feel you neglected to mention another (at least for me and some others I know) iPhone use that is critical (or maybe it was implied and I just missed it) is email and SMS. We use our iPhones for business and the email/SMS applications are critical. If I had done your list, I would have put that second after phone. But of course we love all the other things that come with it.
Also, I'm not bashing here, but from personal experience I like the Verizon - or no AT&T - decision. Which still opens the door for a worldwide connectivity solution.
Personally I like the idea of a miniature tablet. iPhone/Palm/whatever is too small to be functional for any kind of productivity. They're cute & fun, but you can't do business with them. Blackberries are great for communication, but again, try doing word processing, spreadsheets, databases, etc...with them.
But staying long AAPL or in fact any equity going into September may be a big gamble. When the Q3 numbers start coming out (notably employment and GDP) will there be reason to sustain this rally? I have my doubts. We'll see.
Anybody want to call the S&P 500 - where do you think it will be on Oct 31, and Dec 31?
On Jul 24 08:32 AM LuMoS wrote:
> Great article, but as far as the App-Store running on the tablet
> I believe you might be mistaken. Every app in the App-Store is currently
> developed to fit on the typical 3.5 inch touch-screen, not a 10 in.
> So in order for apps to run natively they'd have to be re-done or
> fixed to run on both versions. Which I doubt deva will have the time
> or patience to create apps for more than 1 device. Although it also
> opens up speculation as to wheather Apple will implement a Premium
> App-Store. In which case you might see those
> better more expensive App. Running natively on a 10 in screen.
iPhone Developers (I am one) have been eagerly anticipating new devices with larger (or smaller) screens. With this in mind, the developer will write his code to be screen-size independent. This could manifest itself in several ways:
1) the app will run as-is positioned (usually centered) on a larger screen.
2) the app display will grow to accommodate the larger screen
3) the app will display additional content currently off screen (think Google Maps)
To this end, The iPhone SDK and Cocoa make it trivial to incorporate screen-size independence. Consider:
1) Everything displayed on an iPhone (or a Mac for that matter) is displayed within a bounding rectangle (windows, views, tables, text areas, video, graphics, CoverFlow, web pages, etc).
2) A rectangle is defined with the following snippet of code:
CGRectMake(xOrigin, width, yOrigin, height);
3) This can be coded with absolute values (making the app screen-size dependent):
CGRectMake(0, 320, 0,480)
4) Cocoa provides an easy way to determine the screen size;
CGRect screenRect =[[UIScreen mainScreen] bounds];
5) With access to the device's screen size, it is a simple matter to calculate, for any app rectangle:
-- what percentage of the screen should be taken for a given rectangle
-- the offsets necessary to position that rectangle relative to other rectangles.
Smart developers, who want to sell their apps on any device Apple may release, are already writing screen-size independent code.
Dick
On Jul 24 04:49 PM vloscomp wrote:
> I don't get the significant of the apps store: there are 50,000 crappy
> apps that i do not want, and as far as 1.5 billions download, how
> many of those are profitable or useful?
I'll give you just 1 example. My grandson just finished summer school ( which he has needed every year since first grade). If history repeats, this fall he will be in the lower tier of fourth grade, frustrated, struggling all the way, avoiding homework like the plague.
There are quite a few education-based apps on the app store. I bought Brain Buest 3 because it seemed right for his age level.
Now, every day he looks forward to playing (er, studying) and has progressed quite well in only a week. (His older brother and sister also enjoy the app.)
The Brain Quest series is available in grade levels 2-7.
At, $4.99, I plan on buying each of these, as appropriate (and some other useful apps).
It is our (my grandson's, his mother's, an my) goal to have him matriculate in the top 10% of the fourth grade, with no need for summer school-- so he can stay home and play [fight] with his siblings.
He's gonna' do it!
On Jul 25 09:36 AM dividendmachine1 wrote:
> I am not a tech guy.
>
> Like to hear some opinions whether Apple is overvalued in your opinion
I am also long AAPL, and bought more last Thursday. With expected updates to the iPods and desktops, the China iPhone, the iTouch, SnowLeopard, the iPhone/iPod and laptop Touch successess, Apple's rather aggressive (untypical) guidance for next quarter...
Some analysts are forecasting a $200 price. The current price is $160. That would be a 25% appreciation.
Dick
As for those whose does not know the differences between technology and investing, then they should cheer up AAPL rollercoaster. (AAPL is just another stock)
On Jul 25 10:45 AM Cpowell wrote:
> I've been long AAPL for a while for many of the reasons given above.
> I own a 3GS (gave the 3G to my wife) and did my own comparison to
> the Blackerry models and the Pre. The craze for RIMM prior to earnings
> I could almost understand, since most analysts use Blackberries and
> hated iPhone 2.0 and its lack of cut-n-paste, etc - ("Apple doesn't
> have anything the enterprise biz"). 3.0 corrected some of this bias.
> But PALM with its Pre? What kind of irrational euphoria drove that?
>
>
> But staying long AAPL or in fact any equity going into September
> may be a big gamble. When the Q3 numbers start coming out (notably
> employment and GDP) will there be reason to sustain this rally? I
> have my doubts. We'll see.
>
> Anybody want to call the S&P 500 - where do you think it will
> be on Oct 31, and Dec 31?
On Jul 25 10:19 AM ksmithdc wrote:
> Nice article. But the Origami project (which is the same thing)
> never caught on. I wonder why they think this will be any different.
>
IMO, the Origami project was just another in a series of semi-solutions proposed by Microsoft. Some say MS does this to stake out areas of technology and to deter competition. It was to be a [loosely cobbled-together] integrated bits of software (mainly MS) and [somewhat custom] hardware from several vendors.
If they enter this market, Apple's approach will be different. They will specifically design and integrate the hardware and software to deliver a solution... it may be a solution to a problem that we don't even know we have, yet!
If it isn't well thought out, with a good chance of success, Apple won't do anything.
Dick
On Jul 25 11:49 AM dicklacara wrote:
>
As a BB high volume user I will look for this product and report back.
By Johnathan Vrozos
johnathanvrozos.com
johnathanvrozos.ca
(and in particular if one also counts in the impact of the copycats such as Microsoft)
Personally, I have been using Apple products since the mid-1980's (my old little 1985 Macintosh still works even though I now don't use it any more) and I also have remained a faithful customer over the entire past 25 year period... and I will probably continue to buy whatever new products they come up with.
This since their products invariably are of high quality, easy to use, "work every time" and make life easier and more pleasant. (all aspects that definitely cannot be said to characterize the competition, whatever real competition they've even really had, that is)
Notwithstanding the preceding I probably would disagree with some of the people posting on this thread who seem to think that Apple stock is a great stock to buy right now.
Investing in a company is not necessarily (though sometimes it also could be) about whether one likes the target company or not and thinks its products are great or not. Investing is primarily about trying to make money and choosing among alternative investment products and strategies and the specific securities available and attractive at any given point in time in the market. (since few people have "infinite" money and therefore can buy every single stock they might like)
And at this point in time and in this particular market context -and at its current valuation- I am not convinced that Apple is among the best investments available now among the myriad of very good buys which now exist out there in the big broad market.
(and a twenty five percent forecasted likely increase by year's end is also not necessarily impressive in this market)
I very much would like to be convinced because I like the company so much.
Could someone please put forward some good arguments for buying Apple stock right now that might be able to convince me and also include some future expected target prices a couple of years out?
Though I certainly would accept that no one (ever) can foretell the future and that -for instance- in two years time (if the World Health Organization is to be believed) one billion people around the world will have contracted Swine Flu and (if the World Bank also is to believed) as a direct consequence World GDP may have taken an additional 4% hit.
Something which it seems to me also may not be getting sufficient attention at the moment. (though it probably doesn't have all that much to do with Apple)
On Jul 25 12:25 PM vloscomp wrote:
> You are teaching your grandson the wrong lesson. Brain Quest is also
> available on DS and paper book (without the monthly fees) and soon
> other ... I do wonder about the revs comparison of a product on these
> different platforms. Does anyone have that information?
Au contraire, I am teaching my grandson that "a quality product at a fair price" is a good purchase. He prefers BQ on the iPhone to his workbooks and written practice problems. He can do it on his own, at his own pace. It provides reinforcement and is enjoyable... he asks if he can study & brags about his accomplishments.
Brain Quest is available on the iTunes app Store for $4.99 1-time price per grade level. There are no monthly fees.
itunes.apple.com/WebOb...
Finally, the iTunes app store provides free updates to apps as available... iTunes (or the app store app on the iPhone) notifies you that updates are available and you can download and install them at your convenience. There is no cost for this service.
I do not know how Nintendo or a book publisher provides "updates" with out replacing (repurchasing?) the hard media.
You should try some apps from the app store (fee or free) to see how well it works.
Dick
> Could someone please put forward some good arguments for buying Apple
> stock right now that might be able to convince me and also include
> some future expected target prices a couple of years out?
I think we're at a historical turning point where cell phone providers worldwide are transitioning from being "phone companies" to being "Internet Service Providers." The little gadgets we're calling "smart phones" are really small computers with multiple functions one of which is the telephone. Over the next few years these cell phone service providers will be upgrading to 4th Generation networks with much higher speeds and much greater data capacities. This in turn will further drive adoption of smart phones.
Bottom line is that I believe we're entering a period of rapid and wide adoption of smart phones. Almost everyone will be getting rid of their cell phone and replacing it with a smart phone. This is a huge worldwide market. Much bigger than personal computers.
It's easier for a computer company like Apple to enter the cell phone arena than it is for a cell phone company like Motorola or Nokia to enter the computer busoness. Operating systems like Symbian and Windows Mobile were designed with telephones in mind and they've since tried to add-on computer features. Apple has a significant advatage in terms of software architecture. They also have a key advantage in that they control both the hardware and the software. And they're up to speed now with great products and huge momentum in the marketplace. The incredible success of the App Store caught competitors by surprise. It's now Apple's game to lose.
Smartphones will change the public's perception of these devices away from that of a "cell phone." I use my iPhone constantly but very much for phone calls. I'm not a big telephone talker. Took my wife to the airport last week during rush hour and used it to check a realtime traffic map before choosing my route. Checked stock quotes several times. Checked to see that her flight was on time. Checked email several times and answered a few messages. Used the iPhone's iPod feature to play music on my car stereo to and from the airport. Made note of my cars location in the parking lot in iPhone voice notes. Had breakfast with her at the airport coffee shop and read several NY Times articles on my iPhone. Used AOLs AIM chat app on my iPhone to stay in touch with my office. Round trip two hours. Zero outgoing or incoming phone calls.
Unless the stock market craters again, I see Apple's stock going above $200 again within the next year. I think it has the potential for a really big run-up as happened with Google.
www.tinyurl.com/ox6prj
On Jul 24 01:07 PM vloscomp wrote:
> Time to short APPL
The Kindle is very readable, without a backlight. However, I've been using PowerBooks and MacBook Pros since 1994, and I can't say I've ever experienced eye strain or fatigue from the screen. LCD/LED monitors have decent backlight controls on them, so you can limit the brightness to a comfortable level. My wife's iPod Touch has a brightness adjustment on it that lets the user set a comfortable level.
On Jul 25 01:40 AM Roger Knights wrote:
> BurkPhoto wrote:
>
> "Given the high resolution screens on the iPod Touch and the iPhone,
> I'd bet the high res screen on an iTouch Tablet or iPad or whatever
> they'll call it will be high enough res to do the job of virtual
> ink as good as, or better than, the Kindle."
>
> It isn't the lack of resolution that makes long-term (multi-hour)
> reading tiring on the eyes on an iPhone or iTablet, but the backlighting.
> A Kindle's screen isn't backlit, so it is readable without eyestrain
> for long periods of time.
>
> "The Kindle is great, but it's a one-trick pony. Apple will release
> a general purpose device with much greater total utility."
>
> I agree, which is why I said the iTablet will sweep the world, leaving
> only heavy duty readers for the Kindle. (In comments elsewhere on
> the Kindle I've argued that it needs to be more of a general-purpose
> device, and that Bezos's determination not to do so is a huge mistake.)
* Any new Apple device for the burgeoning consumer electronics market will include access to the App Store, which even now is locking millions of users into Apple products. Even Google is scared.
* The communications piece is right on. Apple will resurrect its iChat technology to take on Skype. Or maybe it just purchases Skype. Hmm. That's been done.
Apple is smarter than all pundits and analysts (I was upset from the stupidity of the other author and the comments he/she linked to by Scott Moronitz although, admittedly, after reading Jason's article I'd leave room for an exception or two). That should be easily deduced by the simple and publicly available knowledge that Apple is a $143.3 billion dollar (Fortune 100) company that just had their best non-holiday quarter in the middle of a terrible economic downturn and, to my knowledge, the analysts and/or pundits aren't. So, I think, it's quite reasonable to conclude that Apple knows what they're doing and that the analysts and pundits are either desperately trying to understand Apple or douchebags (or, quite possibly, both). Again, I was a bit upset at the other author.
So with that in mind, here I go. I believe this new device, like all other Apple devices, is designed to help Apple sell Mac computers. It will be more powerful than an iPhone and more portable/user-friendly... than a laptop. It will be a new device for a new space - a space that we mere mortals don't yet fully realize exists (possibly, but not entirely, the school/college or small to medium business markets).
It will leverage the strength of the App store and all those new Apple developers. The software for this new device will be far more sophisticated and capable then that of the iPhone software and therefore Apple will create a new category of App store software - professional/new idevice software, along with their existing consumer/iPhone software.
This new idevice software category will do 3 things for Apple: 1) It will create definitive App store price levels (low, medium, and high - as opposed to basicly just low now) - something developers desperately want 2) It will help create/pull in even more developers for Apple. This means for the iPhone, the new idevice and even the Mac platform - something Apple desperately wants and 3) It will eventually completely change (or play a large part in) how software will be delivered to users across the entire computer industry of the not to distant future.
No longer will software developers deliver their software on CDs/DVDs or as downloads from their individual websites it will be delivered through the App store (or an app store) and Apple will get their 30% cut - there's nothing like padding your bottom line with billions of micro-payments.
But, why would developers use Apple's App store as opposed to their own?
Simplicity and ease of use for one reason (or because that might the only way ala the iPhone). Just as with the iPhone, one click and the app is downloaded and installed. Developers can/will be able to get close to this level of simplicity and/or integration from their own app store/website but it will never be as simple and easy as from Apple's App store.
Another reason to use Apple's App store - 1.5 billion downloads in 12 short months. That's an amazing set of numbers. The App store has a huge number of customers. And, with the various price levels and a newly designed App store interface customers will be able to find the developers wares more readily.
I suspect there are probably a number of other reasons as well but, the above mentioned should be a good start plus I've already spent far too long pondering this new idevice/software-parad... rather than riding my motorcycle on a beautiful day.
Finally, for full disclosure, in case anyone was wondering, it is quite possible that I'm completely wrong - please refer to paragraph one.
i envision this is what will come out in September. At least I hope.
Sig Gergens
hnsg@earthlink.net
On Jul 24 09:09 AM Roger Knights wrote:
> I agree that the iTablet will sweep the world and become the default
> e-book reader for most readers. But for heavy readers, the Kindle
> is better, because its e-ink is easier to read for long stretches
> and because there is no battery drain except when turning a page.
> I think it will continue to sell well.
On Jul 25 05:33 PM Michael Comeau wrote:
> I don't understand the excitement over the 1.5 billion app sales.
> The vast majority of them are of the 99-cent variety.
A million $.99 here, a million $.99 there... after a while it adds up to real money :)
There are also a parallel technologies to revolutionized the human input interface or (HID). The touch screen is the current standard but what is on the horizon?
On Jul 25 07:17 PM Crude Oil Trader wrote:
> That was the comment I was looking for. I have been holding off buying
> the Kindle, knowing Apple was entering it's market. Seems like a
> lot of industries have the same issues.....batteries, batteries,
> batteries.
Just hoping.
G
On Jul 25 10:45 AM Cpowell wrote:
> I've been long AAPL for a while for many of the reasons given above.
> I own a 3GS (gave the 3G to my wife) and did my own comparison to
> the Blackerry models and the Pre. The craze for RIMM prior to earnings
> I could almost understand, since most analysts use Blackberries and
> hated iPhone 2.0 and its lack of cut-n-paste, etc - ("Apple doesn't
> have anything the enterprise biz"). 3.0 corrected some of this bias.
> But PALM with its Pre? What kind of irrational euphoria drove that?
>
>
> But staying long AAPL or in fact any equity going into September
> may be a big gamble. When the Q3 numbers start coming out (notably
> employment and GDP) will there be reason to sustain this rally?
> I have my doubts. We'll see.
>
> Anybody want to call the S&P 500 - where do you think it will
> be on Oct 31, and Dec 31?
couchapple.tv/2009/07/...
One key variable in thinking about this product as "flagship" is that its release is the forcing function that requires Apple to define its "matrix" thinking between hardware form factors and software forking decisions (e.g., iPhone OS, Mac OS, hybrid OS, download anything from anywhere, exclusively limit distribution to/from App Store), not to mention the service layer and developer tool interconnects between same, a topic that I blogged about in:
Apple, the ‘Boomer’ Tablet and the Matrix
bit.ly/DwziS
Check it out, if interested.
Mark
On Jul 25 08:55 AM donh82 wrote:
> You make some good points but let's remember that having that exclusive
> deal with Apple has put a lot of money in Apple's revenue stream
> as Apple gets revenue every month from the iPhone AT&T subscribers
> and they have almost zero expense related to that revenue stream.
> If you review Apple's latest earnings announcements you'll see what
> I mean. So, it's not only the initial sale of the phone that matters,
> but also the monthly revenue that adds up to great profits.
> Apple no longer receives a monthly revenue stream from AT&T.
> That was changed over a year ago. Apple gets an upfront one time
> payment on each phone.
Here is the latest on Apple's iPhone revenue recognition for iPhone sales. They receive payment up front but they recognize the revenue with non GAAP accounting over a period of 24 months. This smooths out and postpones revenue recognition. I believe it would also defer taxes.
brainstormtech.blogs.f.../
Selling an ARM Board + Case (10in screen included) + Keyboard (?) + Battery + Proprietary BSD OS is in no way = $800.
Here is the breakdown.
ARM Board, a very good one like the beagleboard costs $150 ( cost to consumer). The cost in bulk is probably around $80. Add in all the components (wifi, bluetooth, GPS) and you'll be at around $130
Case (10in screen included), the case will probably $25 ( Chinese labor) and the screen will cost around $150 (cirque.com).
Battery. if we base this thing like the TouchBook (alwaysinnovating.com). it'll have a 6000mAh and 12000mAh battery. The cost to the consumer would be around the order of $125 (googling around for the prices).
So does that mean becoming an Apple slave costs $395 ?
Obviously the price to scale will make the hardware cost even less.
The average consumer is being seriously ripped off !
It's not just a phone, folks! It's a fully functioning communications computer in your pocket. It's already way beyond the "Dick Tracy Two Way Wrist TV" we saw in the 1960s comics... With video capture and editing, still camera with image database, phone with interactive directory, GPS, compass, gaming, email, chat, online shopping, Internet radio and music downloads, etc. ad nauseam, it is a wild fantasy granted reality status. Who wouldn't want one?
So when Apple makes it bigger, it will just have a whole range of additional uses that replace print.
The significance of the App Store is that it makes the iPhone/iPod Touch an "iDo Anything" device. Can any of Apple's competitors in the smart phone market claim they're anywhere close to this?
On Jul 25 05:33 PM Michael Comeau wrote:
> I don't understand the excitement over the 1.5 billion app sales.
> The vast majority of them are of the 99-cent variety.
* Pocketability: Yes, just like a wallet. What else do we all carry around with us everywhere? Purse? Briefcase? Forget it. As they say with cameras, the best computer is the one we have with us.
* App Store access: What with a billion apps out there, maybe 100K "consumer" apps available over the next couple years, this is the great driver for Apple growth over the next five years. What Adobe did for the first Macs, a legion of third party developers will do for Apple in the future.
* Killer feature set: When the day arrives that we don't need a wallet 'cuz the iPod has all our dox on it, the front jeans pocket will become the new back jeans pocket.
The design and functionality are both revolutionary.
You deciding to base the product solely on initial product cost is worthless.
You cannot deliver a revolutionary product at the cost to make.
Look at an iPhone which costs under $200 but sells for $550 with subsidy.
You are probably a PC user that is sad....
On Jul 26 10:20 AM Not.new wrote:
> Wow that is seriously one big rip off !!!!
> Selling an ARM Board + Case (10in screen included) + Keyboard (?)
> + Battery + Proprietary BSD OS is in no way = $800.
>
> Here is the breakdown.
> ARM Board, a very good one like the beagleboard costs $150 ( cost
> to consumer). The cost in bulk is probably around $80. Add in all
> the components (wifi, bluetooth, GPS) and you'll be at around $130
>
>
> Case (10in screen included), the case will probably $25 ( Chinese
> labor) and the screen will cost around $150 (cirque.com).
>
>
> Battery. if we base this thing like the TouchBook (alwaysinnovating.com).
> it'll have a 6000mAh and 12000mAh battery. The cost to the consumer
> would be around the order of $125 (googling around for the prices).
>
>
> So does that mean becoming an Apple slave costs $395 ?
>
> Obviously the price to scale will make the hardware cost even less.
>
> The average consumer is being seriously ripped off !
Apple marketing machinaries have entice their prospective customer to think of Apple devices are unlike another devices. Apple customers (and probably investors) are brain wash by Apple marketing genius.
BTW isellapple: Apple had one revolutionary technology since its inception and that is the "Window" user interface. To those who believed that Apple had invented any revolutionary technology is pure imagination or just Apple marketing. The ARMs board is designed and layout by vendor Engineer not Apple.
On Jul 26 10:20 AM Not.new wrote:
> Wow that is seriously one big rip off !!!!
> Selling an ARM Board + Case (10in screen included) + Keyboard (?)
> + Battery + Proprietary BSD OS is in no way = $800.
>
> Here is the breakdown.
> ARM Board, a very good one like the beagleboard costs $150 ( cost
> to consumer). The cost in bulk is probably around $80. Add in all
> the components (wifi, bluetooth, GPS) and you'll be at around $130
>
>
> Case (10in screen included), the case will probably $25 ( Chinese
> labor) and the screen will cost around $150 (cirque.com).
>
>
> Battery. if we base this thing like the TouchBook (alwaysinnovating.com).
> it'll have a 6000mAh and 12000mAh battery. The cost to the consumer
> would be around the order of $125 (googling around for the prices).
>
>
> So does that mean becoming an Apple slave costs $395 ?
>
> Obviously the price to scale will make the hardware cost even less.
>
> The average consumer is being seriously ripped off !
The iTablet will be a multipurpose device allowing users an interesting new way to connect to the social network info stream on demand, regardless of location. Demand is high for trendy ways to stay connected, and all signs point to the iTablet being a massive success.
The Kindle, in contrast, is a device with a very specific purpose: a user friendly reading platform with a wireless content delivery system. The Kindle was not designed to interact with the social network info stream. Critical reading requires much effort and sustained attention; the Kindle facilitates that.
Furthermore, as the decline of unique information content on webpages accelerates due to ads and site navigation given top spatial priority, the Kindle provides an important service by providing digital content filtered down to its essence.
Disclosure: Avid Kindle user!
If all it took was hardware, we could have had *some* sort of hardware, oh, two years ago?
There's the network question... Will it be data only? Whose network? Then there's the OS question... How much does Snow Leopard have to do with the tablet, and vice-versa? Then there's the battery life issue... related to the processor issue (Atom? ARM? Something entirely new?)
But above all those things, how is it positioned for success? Is there content lined up for it? Does the App Store work with it? Are developers ready with wares for it? Are major newspapers and magazines and publishing houses and others on board?
On Jul 26 04:53 PM evanz wrote:
> Let's see if I can sum this up. The long rumored Apple tablet is
> not a phone. It's not a computer. It's not an e-reader. What exactly
> are we all so excited about here? Think about it this way...will
> this device replace the need for a phone? No. The need for a computer?
> No. There is, afterall, a reason the tablet is "long rumored".
On Jul 26 10:20 AM Not.new wrote:
> Wow that is seriously one big rip off !!!!
> Selling an ARM Board + Case (10in screen included) + Keyboard (?)
> + Battery + Proprietary BSD OS is in no way = $800.
>
> Here is the breakdown.
> ARM Board, a very good one like the beagleboard costs $150 ( cost
> to consumer). The cost in bulk is probably around $80. Add in all
> the components (wifi, bluetooth, GPS) and you'll be at around $130
>
>
> Case (10in screen included), the case will probably $25 ( Chinese
> labor) and the screen will cost around $150 (cirque.com).
>
>
> Battery. if we base this thing like the TouchBook (alwaysinnovating.com).
> it'll have a 6000mAh and 12000mAh battery. The cost to the consumer
> would be around the order of $125 (googling around for the prices).
>
>
> So does that mean becoming an Apple slave costs $395 ?
>
> Obviously the price to scale will make the hardware cost even less.
>
> The average consumer is being seriously ripped off !
this article reaches, and badly.
That would make a device that's pocketable (in a coat or jacket pocket), but not so big that you'd need a backpack to carry it. It would also make a good 'tween device for when you need more than your iPhone, but don't want to carry that 15" MacBook Pro. Make it too large (and 10" is too large) and you might as well carry a full-fledged notebook and be done with it.
A six-inch screen would be a near perfect ebook reader for most texts, a great portable TV and movie media device, and a killer game machine. Email and web browsing, already fairly good on the iPhone, would be more than adequate when done on a high-resolution screen 4x the size.
A smaller device means less weight, and a smaller screen translates into better battery life. A good media player/game pad needs at least eight hours running at full tilt, with, say, a good 12-16 hours when being used as a mere ebook reader/web browser.
Come on Apple, I want a pad, not a tablet.
Have you not seen some of the iphone games and other software running on a 46" plasma ? (with no adapted graphics, just an API hack)
Vector graphics, scale perfectly onto a bigger screen.... No extra development needed. However i agree that some development will be needed for some apps....
But still if even 10% or even 2% of the existing apps could run on the tablet, its a great start and potentially a new group of users for the developers to sell to (ie new market = incentive to create apps for)
On Jul 24 08:32 AM LuMoS wrote:
> Great article, but as far as the App-Store running on the tablet
> I believe you might be mistaken. Every app in the App-Store is currently
> developed to fit on the typical 3.5 inch touch-screen, not a 10 in.
> So in order for apps to run natively they'd have to be re-done or
> fixed to run on both versions. Which I doubt deva will have the time
> or patience to create apps for more than 1 device. Although it also
> opens up speculation as to wheather Apple will implement a Premium
> App-Store. In which case you might see those
> better more expensive App. Running natively on a 10 in screen.
> I agree that the iTablet will sweep the world and become the default
> e-book reader for most readers. But for heavy readers, the Kindle
> is better, because its e-ink is easier to read for long stretches
> and because there is no battery drain except when turning a page.
Unless they adopt some kind of battery managment that will allow for that when using an e-book program. (After all, the OLPC can do that when it's on the right screen settings, and if they can do that, then I'd have thought a Mac could)
Consider this very feasible engineering idea... which BTW I am surprised more seasoned Apple watchers are not really talking about or even speculating about... what if the iPhone, iPod Touch and supposed iTablet are all just appetizers for the main course... which is to integrate a 3G WCDMA chipset into the 13" MacBook Pro? Here is my theory... for what it is worth...
One could argue that the acquisition of PA Semi was really for a much larger strategy than just a processor for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iTablet. Apple probably could not get Intel to engineer a processor that would be able to handle all the power requirements of a 13" MacBook Pro with an integrated 3G (or even 4G LTE) chipset without compromising battery life. The entire hardware engineering for such a product would probably have to be "from scratch" if Apple did not want to compromise on anything... which is typical... so they bought PA Semi so that they could have full control across ALL their mobile products (including laptops). The end goal is having total vertical integration and control across all their products.
I also believe that Apple's experience over the last few years dealing with the Tier 1 Telcos has been an eye opener. Tim Cook has said on numerous occasions that Apple does not know how to build a great laptop and sell it for $499 and make a healthy GP. However, what Apple DOES KNOW is that if they could integrate a 3G/4G chipset into their 13" MacBook Pro, they could have their Telco partners sell the laptop for about $499-$599 and subsidize the rest! All of a sudden, Apple is competing squarely in the netbook market with a product it can be proud of!! If consumers don't want to tie themselves to a Telco, then they would still be able to buy an Apple laptop in the $1000+ range.
RIMM, NOK, GOOG, DELL, HPQ and certainly MSFT would all have a hard time trying to achieve a similar goal with a similar product lineup.
Really? Apple has always made a terrific PC at a premium price that appeals to a small percentage of the overall PC market. The iPod hit and was a smash success both as a hardware device and a way to monetize content (the iTunes store). The iPhone is an OK phone that took this same model and created the app store, as well as tapping into the iTunes store.
A "giant iPod Touch" which is what the tablet may be will be better for movies, and better for apps, and will probably compete with the Kindle for books, and be part of an iBooks store. So we may have Apple as our preferred provider of music, web applications, and books. Not too shabby.
MSFT missed the boat. They won the PC wars with an expensive OS and programs in the 1990s, and that was it, they were done. AAPL got smashed by MSFT in the 1990s and lost the PC wars, but, this decade, monetized digital music, internet based applications, and soon books and movies. And of course GOOG started from nothing and gobbled up most of the internet search revenues right from under the noses of both MSFT and YHOO.
So AAPL is the must own stock for now. Peter Lynch was right again. It's about product and product cycles and who's got the hot products and who doesn't and who is too big to grow fast and who has lots of room to grow.
On Jul 24 08:43 AM Roger Knights wrote:
> "Every app in the App-Store is currently developed to fit on the
> typical 3.5 inch touch-screen, not a 10 in."
>
> I've read that Apple's guidelines for its ap developers advised them
> to write their code in a size-independent manner, presumably through
> an API that adjusts the ap's virtual screen to whatever size actual
> screen the ap is running on. It would have been silly of Apple not
> to have done this, and unthinkable for Jobs et al. not to have anticipated
> it.
> I agree, $800 is way too expensive for a portable e-reader device.
> If Apple wants to take over the space from Kindle, it needs to improve
> on it technologically, but compete in the same $200-300 range.
$800 may be too expensive for a portable e-reader, but is it too expensive for an eReader and a media player and a game machine and an email messaging device and a RSS reader and an internet browser and...
...so on. The problem with a Kindle is that it pretty much does one thing and one thing only... and doesn't too it all that well, to boot.
Apple isn't going to make that mistake, and I could well see many people finding a need for an iPhone AND a tablet AND a notebook, just as today many people have both an iPhone and an iPod.
This is hilarious! The major anti-Apple argument that Windows users have been using for years is that there are 6 million programs for Windows and only 136 for the Mac (albeit most of the ones for Windows are crappy and buggy). Now you are arguing against the very same situation for the app store! What a joke!
Come on - who cares what YOU think of the apps? Clearly most people DO like the app store since 1.5 B downloads is a true phenomenon. If people don't like certain ones of the 50,000 then these apps will not get download or bought, and will fall by the wayside. SO WHAT? There still are thousands of useful and entertaining apps that people do enjoy.
I think you post silly comments like these just to see people's reaction.
On Jul 24 04:49 PM vloscomp wrote:
> I don't get the significant of the apps store: there are 50,000 crappy
> apps that i do not want, and as far as 1.5 billions download, how
> many of those are profitable or useful? This must be year 2000 again
> because traffic is king regardless of generating profit.
Don't forget that the iPhone already costs about $600 - it is just that the carriers subsidize them. Perhaps these will also be carrier subsidized.
"I agree, $800 is way too expensive for a portable e-reader device. If Apple wants to take over the space from Kindle, it needs to improve on it technologically, but compete in the same $200-300 range. $800 is the cost of an almost high-end laptop these days and not what consumers are going to be willing to pay for an e-reader-plus."
1. iPod
2. iTunes
3. Laptops
4. iPhone
5. iPhone app store
6. ?Color "Kindle" displays books, plays movies and music, and runs apps. The color Kindle will primarily function to drive downloads from the iTunes store, the app store, and also a new book section of iTunes, which should be renamed "iContent."
A nice device but I'd rather lug around a lap tap.
From my experience MS will tell the world about all its future products, but may not deliver a coherent solution.
Whilst Apple will try to keep everything secret until they are happy to deliver.
On Jul 25 12:24 PM dicklacara wrote:
>
From my experience MS will tell the world about all its future products, but may not deliver a coherent solution.
Whilst Apple will try to keep everything secret until they are happy to deliver.
On Jul 25 12:24 PM dicklacara wrote:
>
You should look at some of the business end IBMs, Sony, Tosh or even Dells (Alienware).
On Jul 28 08:04 AM jmmx wrote:
> @ jabalong
>
> Don't forget that the iPhone already costs about $600 - it is just
> that the carriers subsidize them. Perhaps these will also be carrier
> subsidized.
>
>
> "I agree, $800 is way too expensive for a portable e-reader device.
> If Apple wants to take over the space from Kindle, it needs to improve
> on it technologically, but compete in the same $200-300 range. $800
> is the cost of an almost high-end laptop these days and not what
> consumers are going to be willing to pay for an e-reader-plus."
You can bet that there will be both a subsidized 3G/4G version sold through carriers and a WiFi only version sold through regular channels. Both will be able to run Apps from the App Store.
Granted, there's a huge market for this kind of thing, but not as big as the "put it in my pocket and go" market
The original iPod was great, but very limited in it's capabilities. I think the iPod touch is the solution they chose to evolve the iPod and it has worked perfectly. It was then fairly easy to add the cell phone function.
But it doesn't matter much which came first, so long as we have both chickens and eggs.
> No way the iPod Touch was an afterthought I think you have that backwards.
> The original iPod was great, but very limited in it's capabilities.
> I think the iPod touch is the solution they chose to evolve the iPod
> and it has worked perfectly. It was then fairly easy to add the
> cell phone function. But it doesn't matter much which came first, so long as we have both chickens and eggs.
You are correct about the chicken and eggs thing. But I'm pretty sure the iPhone was in development long before they came up with the iPod Touch idea as a companion product.
Here is a link to an iPhone Timeline
www.iphonegold.org/iph...
"We consider smartphones like the iPhone to be personal computers in that they have the same hardware and software attributes as PCs"
Given this position by AT&T, what's stopping Apple from offering their iPhone on other networks - now?
I don't know how many software programs there are on the Windows platform, but then can you also say that most of the software made for Windows PCs are junk. There are a lot that may be unpolished or useless to most people, but you can't just call them junk without even trying them.
I refuse to speculate on this tablet because in theory it sound like a terrific device, but in actual use, I think it might be awkward to use as just a flat slate as I've seen in the concept renderings. Awkward to hold in one hand, at least and if it's flat on a desk it would be awkward to read from. I'd fix that if I had to create a stand from scratch. I'll pass judgment when I get at least some look at the real thing, if there actually is a real tablet in the makings.
On Jul 28 05:17 AM shmlco wrote:
$800 may be too expensive for a portable e-reader, but is it too expensive for an eReader and a media player and a game machine and an email messaging device and a RSS reader and an internet browser and...
If this is real, the reader will be only one application. $800 is not for a reader, it is for a media device.
Why the iPad, not iTouch. Apple already used iPod Touch, and has set the branding names of iPod and iPhone, and iPad follows there branding concept of i....and a simple name. It will be the Apple iPad or the Apple iPad Touch when released in December 2009.
Sales will be through the roof on the device, if they keep the price down, release with minimal bugs, follow the iPhone functionality, it does not overheat, and has a good battery life. If they get those aspects right it will Rock. ipaddude@appleipad.net
It won't happen in September sorry, they will wait 24hrs after release of Win7 to upstage it.