Just a scant few hours away, and the pre orders for Apple's iPad mini and the official launch of Windows 8 and Windows Surface, and I think it's about time that I came back to posting.
If I'm honest, no one really cared about the iPad mini despite it having overshadowed almost all of the new showings at the recent Apple event. Sure, everyone has seen/heard about the new Mac mini, the new iMac being thinner than most textbooks in the world, and the new retina display 13" Macbook Pro. However, the fourth generation iPad is overshadowed, by it's tinier, market catch-up of a brother.
Why IS the iPad mini among Apple's lineup? It's difficult to really understand from an outsider's point of view, but it's easy to see that Apple is playing catch up. Everyone else has one, and lots of people have been bugging Apple for a tablet that's smaller than the existing iPad. The long line of success could potentially boost it's already large market share in the tablet world. Why not give it a try?
Here's why : the iPad worked because of what it is. It was about the size of a piece of paper, yet it did more than any piece of paper could ever do. It was interactive, it felt right, it made sense, and it was comparable to the size of an average magazine, which was one of the many primary functions the iPad had and was highlighted by Apple, two and a half years ago, in the spring of 2010. So has Tim Cook proven to the entire world that the death of Steve Jobs really brought about a less innovative era for Apple? Is the tech giant that always starts new trends now doing the opposite and playing catch up?
No and possibly yes, respectively. Steve Jobs was backed by a team of hardworking engineers who come up with innovative designs. The entire OS X team is still running strong, and Jony Ive is still pushing out designs that make people drool at it's simplistic, yet beautiful designs. As I've mentioned in my obituary to Steve Jobs, I believed that he had done what many people hadn't been able to do, and bring Apple into something magical, and worthy of cult status, but he needed people working with him. What Tim Cook can do, is exactly what Steve Jobs can do. After all, both only want whats best for Apple.
So is the new iPad mini Apple's demise? I won't say so. Apple still maintains its quirky design and style with a smaller tablet, but they've done it in ways that makes all other 7"-range tablets seem like plastic toys. You get what you pay for, so for all Apple haters out there, there's a reason why your tablet cost less than half the iPad mini : it's dirt cheap, cause it was made with dirt cheap materials.
However, this is not to say the iPad mini is free of flaws. It is still utilizing iPad 2 guts, which makes it as powerful as a mobile phone at best, and hardly worthy of any praise especially when it comes to screen resolution. Personally, I don't see why this is worth getting unless it's to be used for corporate purposes. If you really want an iPad, and you don't already have one, then go for the third generation iPad. It's cheaper, and because the connector is going to be phased out, many people are willing to sell you spare cables/accessories for cheap.
Now, to diverge away from Apple and to actually make a proper comment on the launch of Windows 8 and Windows Surface. Windows Vista had left a lot of people with a terrible after taste of what Windows OS upgrades can be, that Windows 7 had it's work cut out since day 1. Amazingly, it didn't disappoint. However, with the launch of Windows 8, it's hard to see what they can do, without destroying the faith of people who finally decided to trust Windows again after the whole Vista fiasco.
It's a very interesting approach because Windows 8 attempts to catch the hearts of people who have put down their computers and laptops in favour of the tablet computer. Touch screen interfaces, small light and portable devices that are less bulky to carry around, and do not entirely rely on keyboards, big batteries and insane power cables. just to keep itself running is a hard thing to turn down. Windows 8 seems to have hit the right spot by making all of this a reality in basing an OS that isn't as computer-based as Windows 7. Sure, new hardware including touchscreen monitors has been developed (yours truly has one already), touchscreen laptops/ultrabooks have been developed, and even the new Microsoft Surface has been announced to make all of this work together.
Different design tweaks have been added, complete with many different usability habits have been analyzed. All of this culminates in a really new and awesome looking "Metro UI" that's garnered praise from all sorts of reporters. However, the average consumer might not be too happy with these changes as they really disrupt the status quo. Users tend to mold into the computer and systems they're used to, which made the transition from Windows XP and Windows Vista so difficult, as it was a huge leap from what most users are used to. The entire interface no longer made sense to some people, still hopped up on the joy and wonder of Windows XP. It was a fantastic operating system, and it's hard to really try to replace a classic. It's also the same reason why Sinatra can never be replaced, or why Louis Armstrong could never be reproduced.
So is the announcement of Windows 8 will instantly dominate the world this Saturday, and more amazingly, Windows Surface will also debut. Sure, it's Microsoft's late answer to the tablet market dominated by the iPad, and the still undeniably ridiculous excuse of copies from numerous manufacturers running the Android operating system, but it can't be totally ignored. The surface did what the Android tablets couldn't do, and it was instilling fear through beautiful designs and ingenious design. Windows Surface has been a huge hit with a lot of people since it was announced, because it wasn't just a tablet. It leaked great amounts of passion and a significant amount of pressure to the competition because it wasn't just trying to take a stab at the iPad market, and make a sizable dent in it. It wanted to change the way people used tablets. Back in late 2010, when Blackberry decided it was time for them to fight into the tablet market by introducing the terrible failure known as the Playbook, it seemed to have been filled with pomp and circumstance. Unfortunately, it was anything but, and it's demise as of Day 1 was also the advent for all other iPad copies to eventually meet their doom by even trying to exist on the market.
What made Apple's iPad successful was because it was built on an infrastructure that worked. It was simple to use and also had a great app store, which really propelled it to new heights. The iPad has such a great ability to instill upon so much imagination into many developers, it's virtually turned the iPad into (as Jony Ive puts it) "something magical".
Microsoft actually has a chance to replicate the success of the iPad because the Windows operating system was successful because it is the most popular in the whole world. Regardless of the high number of Macbook owners, Windows still has a large foothold. This loyal fanbase, complete with legacy that it cannot fight, including their large number of existing apps can easily make Windows 8 and Windows Surface a success. If Microsoft plays their cards right, they don't have to end up as cheap plastic touchscreen toys that are competitively slightly cheaper than the iPad, but hugely more unattractive. Windows Surface can be a major hit. Of course, time will tell, and it won't be too long before the results come out.
Showing posts with label iPad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPad. Show all posts
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Post 020
I've always had a love-hate relationship with tablets. I think it all started out when the early tablets were merely laptops with a touchscreen and stylus, and swiveled so that the keyboard can be an optional thing. It seemed like a cool thing to have. It was beyond what we know because there was the touchscreen capability. However, that was nothing but a two minute gimmick. if anything, it was a disappointment.
These early tablets were clunky, expensive and really not that useful. You were better off just using a regular mouse to do all of your drawings instead.
Apple, as per usual, decided to rewrite the rule book and came up with the iPad back in early 2010. The iPad looked like a joke to a lot of people. It looked like an iPod Touch being magnified four times, it acted like an iPod Touch. In fact, it ran a similar piece of software that runs on the iPod Touch. Everything about it, screamed iPod Touch. There were people who joked that while the rest of the world was finding ways to shrink their products, Apple, decided to do the opposite. In retrospect, that seems to be the trend, with Android phones getting bigger and bigger, reaching to the point of the Galaxy Note, the One X and even the Lumia.
The thing about the iPad was that even though it was like an iPod Touch, it worked. It made sense. It was a device that really did put a a lot of things on the market to shame. What was the point of an ebook reader, or a digital photo frame? Why would you want to bring your laptop away from home, and furthermore, why would you bother to buy a netbook.
Naturally, when the rest of the world rolled out with their versions of tablets to satisfy the Apple haters, much was at stake. Unfortunately, many people have failed. Lenovo's was too slow, Acer's was rubbish by definition of being an Acer, Samsung had many to choose from, but they never caught on, Motorola made one, many people didn't seem to know that, Asus made one, and it was well received, but it's not mainstream, HP made one, but then axed it, and lastly, even Blackberry made one, which was a monumental failure. Let's be honest, the iPad was well designed, and everything about it was slightly superior to their competitors. Unlike the Playbook by Blackberry, no McMaster business professor gave an interview, highlighting how useful it's built-in HDMI output was useful. That could be because the iPad didn't have one, but that's not the main reason.
What made the iPad so successful was because it was a simple thing to work with. It wasn't filled with the insane intricacies of the Android operating system. Even though everyone praises the Android operating system to be free of bounds that Apple products have, I never found it easy to use. It was a pain to navigate, it was cumbersome, and required a slight learning curve that Apple products lacked. All iOS devices are relatively universal, so the amount of work required in learning to use their products is virtually little if any.
This is what opens up a new opportunity for competitors. A newcomer into the tablet market can capitalize on Android's ridiculous system, and Apple's strict stronghold on non-jailbroken devices. Microsoft has made that attempt this week with their new Microsoft Surface tablet. The tablet features a built in kickstand. It features a pressure sensitive keyboard, that doubles as the smart cover. This makes it easier to type than any tablet on the market. It features Windows 8 interface, and even has quite a bit of power to punch.
All of this makes the Microsoft Surface seem like a very attractive device. Reviews have been great for Windows 8, especially with how well the social integration aspect was so good on its UI. I've never been a fan of social networking, so I can care less. What is most important, is the entire issue with apps. Apps are what make or break a device. Apple's great success lies within the fact that they have hundreds of thousands of apps. The apps range from small and useless apps that make fart noises, to ridiculously high end ones that allow you to do 3D mapping of an object you've only taken photos of. Android isn't far behind, but is slowly trying to catch up. This is precisely what broke the Playbook, because it made no sense to use, and had very little, if any applications. So, the most important question to ask is : Can this tablet by Microsoft make it as a latecomer?
Will Microsoft be able to learn from its mistakes from the development of the Windows Phone OS and actually try to make something that's user-friendly? Only time will tell.
These early tablets were clunky, expensive and really not that useful. You were better off just using a regular mouse to do all of your drawings instead.
Apple, as per usual, decided to rewrite the rule book and came up with the iPad back in early 2010. The iPad looked like a joke to a lot of people. It looked like an iPod Touch being magnified four times, it acted like an iPod Touch. In fact, it ran a similar piece of software that runs on the iPod Touch. Everything about it, screamed iPod Touch. There were people who joked that while the rest of the world was finding ways to shrink their products, Apple, decided to do the opposite. In retrospect, that seems to be the trend, with Android phones getting bigger and bigger, reaching to the point of the Galaxy Note, the One X and even the Lumia.
The thing about the iPad was that even though it was like an iPod Touch, it worked. It made sense. It was a device that really did put a a lot of things on the market to shame. What was the point of an ebook reader, or a digital photo frame? Why would you want to bring your laptop away from home, and furthermore, why would you bother to buy a netbook.
Naturally, when the rest of the world rolled out with their versions of tablets to satisfy the Apple haters, much was at stake. Unfortunately, many people have failed. Lenovo's was too slow, Acer's was rubbish by definition of being an Acer, Samsung had many to choose from, but they never caught on, Motorola made one, many people didn't seem to know that, Asus made one, and it was well received, but it's not mainstream, HP made one, but then axed it, and lastly, even Blackberry made one, which was a monumental failure. Let's be honest, the iPad was well designed, and everything about it was slightly superior to their competitors. Unlike the Playbook by Blackberry, no McMaster business professor gave an interview, highlighting how useful it's built-in HDMI output was useful. That could be because the iPad didn't have one, but that's not the main reason.
What made the iPad so successful was because it was a simple thing to work with. It wasn't filled with the insane intricacies of the Android operating system. Even though everyone praises the Android operating system to be free of bounds that Apple products have, I never found it easy to use. It was a pain to navigate, it was cumbersome, and required a slight learning curve that Apple products lacked. All iOS devices are relatively universal, so the amount of work required in learning to use their products is virtually little if any.
This is what opens up a new opportunity for competitors. A newcomer into the tablet market can capitalize on Android's ridiculous system, and Apple's strict stronghold on non-jailbroken devices. Microsoft has made that attempt this week with their new Microsoft Surface tablet. The tablet features a built in kickstand. It features a pressure sensitive keyboard, that doubles as the smart cover. This makes it easier to type than any tablet on the market. It features Windows 8 interface, and even has quite a bit of power to punch.
All of this makes the Microsoft Surface seem like a very attractive device. Reviews have been great for Windows 8, especially with how well the social integration aspect was so good on its UI. I've never been a fan of social networking, so I can care less. What is most important, is the entire issue with apps. Apps are what make or break a device. Apple's great success lies within the fact that they have hundreds of thousands of apps. The apps range from small and useless apps that make fart noises, to ridiculously high end ones that allow you to do 3D mapping of an object you've only taken photos of. Android isn't far behind, but is slowly trying to catch up. This is precisely what broke the Playbook, because it made no sense to use, and had very little, if any applications. So, the most important question to ask is : Can this tablet by Microsoft make it as a latecomer?
Will Microsoft be able to learn from its mistakes from the development of the Windows Phone OS and actually try to make something that's user-friendly? Only time will tell.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Post 012
So, after Mac OSX Lion, what better to talk about than the recent release of the iPad 2? iPad 2 is basically Apple's latest answer to threats from it's competitors including the Samsung Galaxy Tab, the Blackberry Playbook, the HP Xoom and the LG....um....I remember the name of that thing.....I'll remember eventually.
The sad reality behind all of these "competitors" to the iPad is that they are all copies. Cute copies, but nevertheless, futile. It was very similar to the iPhone. After the iPhone was released, there were competitors, and there were competitors. There were competitors that were merely copies, like the various HTC devices that came out prior to the release of the Dream/Magic and they actually did pretty well. It is without a doubt that the only TRUE competitor for the iPhone is none other than the Android-powered devices of the Samsung Galaxy S phones. These phones are available for every known carrier on the planet, and backed by a pretty good Android OS which gets better and better with every software update. These were fine and good phones. They started off as copies, but nevertheless, they have grown in their own respective manner and have really gave Apple a run for their money while trying hard to stave off this growing threat.
However, there were the other competitors. The ones that never really stacked up. The various touchscreen LGs, the Nokia N5800 and its variants...the list goes on. I was once presented with the Nokia N5800 with a very ambitious commentary, saying it was "an iPhone fighter". The only thing that phone can ever take in a real fight, is probably itself, because of how slow the Symbian OS was, often besting itself in how slow and how unintuitive the controls on a phone can actually be. On a side note : Nokia's CEO was angry that Nokia is losing the smartphone battle a while back. Hint hint : run your devices with Android, and you'll be fine.
So, the reality of the situation is : Apple comes out with a great product, people love it, some people try hard to create a "competitor", and they make utterly ridiculous copies. Let's start off with the Galaxy Tab. Yes, it's fast. Yes, it's running on Android, but the truth is, it really never was as amazing as the iPad. The iPad is supposedly a major leap forward in that it really turned mobile computing from the dinky netbooks into something amazing to use. The iPad is like, a clipboard, it's like a book, it's like a video player, it's basically, the bare bits and pieces of today's computing habits, all rolled into one thin, beautiful slate, that really attracts people to buy one.
So that brings me on to the release of the new iPad 2. I've said before that the first iPad was mind blowing. It made sense after you've played with it. It seems to work out just right. So, what is it then that Apple could do to make improvement on such great success? Simple, a thinner device, lighter, greater video performance, and the cameras that its competitors have, and most of all, a better processor. That's not all. The folks at Apple have also revealed something very very revolutionary in the form of a magnetic cover. The cover is a magnet stuck to a cover, which basically covers the machine and protects the precious touch screen. However, that's not all. There is more. Upon lifting the cover, the screen turns on, while placing the cover turns off the screen. It then serves as a stand for the iPad 2, working in all orientations. It also sits in the right spot all the time because it is magnetic.
Now, the best part out of all this is the iPad's price. Apple still manages to make the cheapest tablet computer on the market. The largest screen, the best hardware, and a very friendly interface. It just about makes the world perfect. Now, if only I had the money to actually buy one.
The sad reality behind all of these "competitors" to the iPad is that they are all copies. Cute copies, but nevertheless, futile. It was very similar to the iPhone. After the iPhone was released, there were competitors, and there were competitors. There were competitors that were merely copies, like the various HTC devices that came out prior to the release of the Dream/Magic and they actually did pretty well. It is without a doubt that the only TRUE competitor for the iPhone is none other than the Android-powered devices of the Samsung Galaxy S phones. These phones are available for every known carrier on the planet, and backed by a pretty good Android OS which gets better and better with every software update. These were fine and good phones. They started off as copies, but nevertheless, they have grown in their own respective manner and have really gave Apple a run for their money while trying hard to stave off this growing threat.
However, there were the other competitors. The ones that never really stacked up. The various touchscreen LGs, the Nokia N5800 and its variants...the list goes on. I was once presented with the Nokia N5800 with a very ambitious commentary, saying it was "an iPhone fighter". The only thing that phone can ever take in a real fight, is probably itself, because of how slow the Symbian OS was, often besting itself in how slow and how unintuitive the controls on a phone can actually be. On a side note : Nokia's CEO was angry that Nokia is losing the smartphone battle a while back. Hint hint : run your devices with Android, and you'll be fine.
So, the reality of the situation is : Apple comes out with a great product, people love it, some people try hard to create a "competitor", and they make utterly ridiculous copies. Let's start off with the Galaxy Tab. Yes, it's fast. Yes, it's running on Android, but the truth is, it really never was as amazing as the iPad. The iPad is supposedly a major leap forward in that it really turned mobile computing from the dinky netbooks into something amazing to use. The iPad is like, a clipboard, it's like a book, it's like a video player, it's basically, the bare bits and pieces of today's computing habits, all rolled into one thin, beautiful slate, that really attracts people to buy one.
So that brings me on to the release of the new iPad 2. I've said before that the first iPad was mind blowing. It made sense after you've played with it. It seems to work out just right. So, what is it then that Apple could do to make improvement on such great success? Simple, a thinner device, lighter, greater video performance, and the cameras that its competitors have, and most of all, a better processor. That's not all. The folks at Apple have also revealed something very very revolutionary in the form of a magnetic cover. The cover is a magnet stuck to a cover, which basically covers the machine and protects the precious touch screen. However, that's not all. There is more. Upon lifting the cover, the screen turns on, while placing the cover turns off the screen. It then serves as a stand for the iPad 2, working in all orientations. It also sits in the right spot all the time because it is magnetic.
Now, the best part out of all this is the iPad's price. Apple still manages to make the cheapest tablet computer on the market. The largest screen, the best hardware, and a very friendly interface. It just about makes the world perfect. Now, if only I had the money to actually buy one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)