Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Google vs. Apple: Battle of the Copycats

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 20, 2010 11:26:34 AM

Somebody just make a blank one and let us have it for a fair price, we will do the rest.

Score
33
April 20, 2010 11:40:09 AM

android good..
a .NET based OS better, if going any way near Microsoft.., a win 7.. UI specialized for the tablet, simplified and stripped to the bone..but capable of running virtually all win apps..
just my 2 cents
Score
7
Related resources
April 20, 2010 11:51:36 AM

i think Google poses a formidable threat to Apple. let's just wait and see if Google releases a device that trully will be the definition of tablet.
Score
23
April 20, 2010 11:53:39 AM

google has much perspective..and so many awesome products for free..
the tablet could be a major success
Score
10
Anonymous
April 20, 2010 12:31:27 PM

Key is interfacing / interaction with other devices. The key part ipad lacks. For example lets take the situation at a friends work place. They want to use a tablet to sign in people to their data center, they have a custom application which handles their authorization into the center. Currently its running on a tablet laptop. Allows for digital signatures, etc.
They would love to throw this onto a ipad but can't, being 5 floors below the ground, and no wi-fi allowed in the data center. And cell phone blocking technology in place. (mainly so people can't send infromation about the center out of the place unless they memorize it, which is usually difficult to do. The ipad ends up being pointless, no connectivity means no way to validate, also they tried a similar sign in upstairs but their app was denied by apple, they have a webpage but their programmers use flash, so they have to rewrite the whole webpage, or just wait for google / hp / MS to release tablets in 6 months.

Now yes I know they could build the app and just load it with the webkit etc, but its not clean / user friendly to boot it up that way.
Score
1
April 20, 2010 12:31:37 PM

Open vs. Locked Down
that says it all, because even apple users admit at times they need some un-approved apps, since some of them got some apps that were latter withdrawn from the store, (not counting in those who jailbreak, those are disowned children now).
Score
21
April 20, 2010 12:33:34 PM

I'm getting the same sinking feeling about tablets that I had about netbooks (for my use at least). When netbooks first hit the market I was thinking "damn, I'll just wait a few months and then grab the best one for the lowest price"... but a few months came and went and I never got a netbook because they just didn't seem... useful. Of course, having said that, I'm sure the flame-throwers will be coming out in defense of how awesome everyone's netbooks are.
.
Maybe the tablet craze will be different.
Score
14
April 20, 2010 12:50:14 PM

My concern is that the quality of doing it "different than Apple" overlooks the things Apple is doing *right*. And despite all attitudes and bias, they do some things right. Unfortunately, one of those things is control. That power, abused or not, makes appliances work.

So, consider a two-tiered platform: One an open, flexible action space with all its boons and banes, and the Other a tighter, structured space much like Apple has, or perhaps a suped-up Valve Steam if you'd like. Things that are well built and fit can graduate from the former into the latter. AM and FM, in a radio appliance paradigm.

Just a thought.
Score
1
April 20, 2010 1:20:10 PM

Googles Tablet will be tied to Googles apps. I suspect it will not be anymore capable that Apple's, Or HP's. The real question is usability and overall functionality and who's gonna make that happen.
Like it or not, Googles Os is still rough around the edges and seriously lack refinement and HP is trying to make use of windows who's interface is based on Keyboard and mouse inputs now rigged to work with touch input. Apple is the only company who has taken the time and resources to develop an OS for the sole purpose of working on touch based devices. If the other companies would just take their time and make a product from the ground up and stop being "me too" followers....Apple would not be consider the ones to beat, but just another flavor of an excellent selection of Tablet devices.
Score
-13
April 20, 2010 1:24:30 PM

"I would agree with Kay that a mainstream computing device should be easily programmable to adapt to certain scenarios when you want it to. Imagine a visual programming language that would enable you to create simple applications to perform very specialized tasks."
What I wish my computer had is the ability to write a script through normal sentences. This could for example be used for easy but time consuming tasks such as "copy all the rows in the excel file with the word 'New' and paste them in the word document". Depending on the length of the file it can take AGES as a human being to do, the computer would do it in less than a second.

For more complicated tasks, lets say you have tons of physical books or movies to choose from. You want to pick out the best rated one. There are applications on the mobile devices to take a pic of the cover and then give details about it. If things were open and easy, you should be able to just ask the device to just take a pic of all of them and return with the name of the highest rated one.

The application that analyzes pictures of things shouldn't only be a stand-alone program, it should be just one open feature that can be used together with other things.
Score
3
April 20, 2010 1:26:25 PM

Interested in the Google one. It bet it will do what the iPad does and use Linux and hopefully have a removable battery. If not I will wait for Acer.
As far as the headline, the biggest copycat is Microsoft. They have copied since the beginning. Back then it was copying from Apple to make Windows 3.1.
Score
-9
April 20, 2010 1:47:39 PM

Shez wrote:
Quote:
... but a few months came and went and I never got a netbook because they just didn't seem... useful. Of course, having said that, I'm sure the flame-throwers will be coming out in defense of how awesome everyone's netbooks are.

Netbooks aren't awesome. They are just another tool realistically aimed at a fairly small niche market. For me, a netbook is a perfect travel computer. When I am traveling, all i need is internet access for email and an ebook reader. Mine has an especially long battery life under light usage. Battery charge will last one Middle East to Europe hop and Europe to US hope before it needs charging. And it fits inside my carry-on bag - really important now that some airlines are prohibiting 2 carry-ons.

Would a tablet work as well? I don't think so.

regulas:
Don't forget. Macintosh was based on a copy of the old PARC Xerox Star complete with paper white screen and single button mouse.
Score
1
Anonymous
April 20, 2010 1:49:30 PM

I think something the author is missing is that he talks about the Google tablet as being cloud focused. The iPad has a browser and can use any non-Flash content (by and large), so most of the cloud-based things would be the same for either. There is already a job posting at Apple that gives away the fact that the next version of the iPad will have a camera. You already have Skype functioning on the iPad and there is a built in mic, so conferencing is already possible. The initial version is less crippled than some people want to believe.
Score
0
April 20, 2010 1:58:04 PM

tomtompiperSomebody just make a blank one and let us have it for a fair price, we will do the rest.

seconded :) 
Score
4
April 20, 2010 2:08:59 PM

Well, its not like tablets are anything new anyway....I would bet on google, but with Apples advertising schemes(ones that have worked well in the past :(  )I would say its a bit too early to call a winner.
Score
0
April 20, 2010 2:12:26 PM

One weaknesses Google will continue to have is that they do not build hardware. Apple, on the other hand, is arguably the best quality hardware builder out there. People will buy an Apple product because Apple can stand by their hardware and repairs can be done as near as any Apple Store.

Yeah, I know this is barely anything to do with the perspective of the discussion but I had to ask myself which of these two I'd buy in a given situation. I hate shoddy hardware, or even the chance of it.
Score
-4
April 20, 2010 2:14:57 PM

google could be on the disadvantage here, apple has its own hardware, google is relying on a second party hardware.
Score
-1
April 20, 2010 2:16:13 PM

mj4358Googles Tablet will be tied to Googles apps. I suspect it will not be anymore capable that Apple's, Or HP's. The real question is usability and overall functionality and who's gonna make that happen.Like it or not, Googles Os is still rough around the edges and seriously lack refinement and HP is trying to make use of windows who's interface is based on Keyboard and mouse inputs now rigged to work with touch input. Apple is the only company who has taken the time and resources to develop an OS for the sole purpose of working on touch based devices. If the other companies would just take their time and make a product from the ground up and stop being "me too" followers....Apple would not be consider the ones to beat, but just another flavor of an excellent selection of Tablet devices.


While you are 100% correct here, that's why Apple wins where it wins. They take the time to do things right and, despite everyone kicking and screaming, do things the way they envision it. Sometimes that means ignoring certain technologies, other times it means jumping on open standards before they are popular.

A good example is Blu-ray or a front facing camera - which they are criticized for. But then they go and use the new USB specs for the iPad charging - which they are criticized for.
Score
-1
April 20, 2010 2:26:48 PM

nukemasterWell, its not like tablets are anything new anyway....I would bet on google, but with Apples advertising schemes(ones that have worked well in the past )I would say its a bit too early to call a winner.


As someone who never owned an Apple product in their life until the iPhone 3G - let me promise you it had nothing to do with advertising. Once Apple added Exchange support to their phone, I abandoned Windows Mobile. And, it being an MP3 player, I was forced into the iPod world that I had avoided.

Regardless, the product sold me because it was quality in every way, and did exactly what it was supposed to do without the hangups...and now I pay much closer attention to Apple's products, because I recognize their value in a way I hadn't. Advertising is definitely not what sold me an iPad over a Google tablet that doesn't even exist yet - which is another point. The iPad name is going to be synonymous with tablets from here out - it's the first of a new type of portable that relies on a more efficient OS, and has a humongous head start because Apple did something that nobody else would.
Score
0
April 20, 2010 2:39:08 PM

Hmm... we'll see
Score
1
April 20, 2010 2:43:34 PM

PRICE??? PRICE!!! You didn't mention PRICE. Price will be very important. At equal price points it can't compete with Apple, it will have to be significantly cheaper, but I think this is key. A lot of people could put together or rationalize $250-300 but couldn't rationalize $500-600.
Score
-1
April 20, 2010 2:44:02 PM

This is a typical article written by someone who clearly has no programming experience, and doesn't understand at all software development.

I'm not fan of Apple, at all, but pure freedom in design of applications is a disaster, and antithetical to proper software development.

I'm not clear on all of Apple's motives, as I don't care about the company and don't closely watch what they do, but using a consistent design with software is imperative. It's been that way for a very long time. You want users to jump on your app and know exactly where everything the first time they use it, if they have experience with that platform.

It's not about being cute, and showing what a great programmer you are, and showing your personality. Jerks like this learn quickly it's not tolerated. It's putting things where people expect it, and following the guidelines of that computer so the customer is as comfortable as possible with the application.

I'm not suggesting Apple should artificially limit what apps are available for their device to make a profit, but I am suggesting they define a common user access interface as a standard and have applications follow it as much as possible. Anything else makes the device more difficult to use, and the device less useful. Not everyone wants to fidget with a computer, they just want it to do what they want it to do. So, it's got to be simple to use and intuitive, and consistent with what they know, but, admittedly, Apple's got to allow applications that do these things as well.

My point is, a blank slate without standards is nearly useless to most people, and not a product that can sell. Keep It Simple, Stupid! It's a bit condescending and insulting, but it's really important to remember when developing software.

Score
-7
April 20, 2010 4:14:02 PM

Open vs Closed - Interesting arguement.

The statement is that the closed system is one that "just works" but you are forced to use pay-for Apps that Apple has the ultimate sanction over.

The further statement is that the open system is one that allows you to use whatever software you want from wherever.

The underlying implied statement is that the closed system and the "just works" are somehow linked and that being closed is what gives it stability. Poppycock. Where is it written anywhere that if a system is open it has to be unstable. A system may very well be unstable, or have been accused of being so in the past (eg "MS made Win ME so buggy so I dont trust Win 7, blah blah").

But let's get this straight. An open system is not the cause of instability. It may be a contributing factor, but the main reason why things go belly up is people installing something they shouldn't. This takes us back to the App Store. They ensure that only approved Apps go through to the end user and the end user is not given the choice other than what Apple tells them.

This is not a fanboy issue, this goes to the root of a political stance for many people, so imagine it was your Government.
Do you prefer an all-encompassing Party machine that runs everything, because they are supposedly the people in charge and therefore more qualified to make decisions for you? Alternatively, you could have smaller Government that privatises major services and leaves decision making to the individual.

Apple is basically a Communist State, which would make Steve Jobs the new Stalin.
Score
6
April 20, 2010 4:30:39 PM

If I was to bet on this, I would bet on Apple. Marketing is just way too important to the majority of people. Unless Google comes out with a vastly superior product and gains a good portion of market share in a short period of time (Apple can match anything Google throws at them within 6-12 months), they have little chance.

I hope that Google can compete with Apple (I have little love for Apple) but regardless, I think tablets are about 2-3 years of software development away from being useful for the mainstream, which could give Google the time it needs to be competitive.
Score
-3
April 20, 2010 5:17:44 PM

back by demand,
Your logic is flawed! Please explain how Apple is a socialist company when Quality control measures are used to ensure a desired outcome? I hardly see the relevance in your argument when any manufacturer or software writer's can produce products for their computers. If the complaint that Apple holds software makers to a standard, then i fail to see how thats bad for the customer. The FDA ensures that food, drug makers provide safe effective products. Are they Socialist? And if they are, then it's to your benefit. What about the car makers who have to meet the NHTSA safety standards before they sell you a car. Im sure your glad someone is holding Toyota to a standard when it comes to your life and money. All this anger towards Apple for doing the same thing that Government does to protect you from corporations and scam's is just asinine.
I for one am glad to see a company forcing software makers and hardware makers to a standard. I don't feel I should have to pay X amount dollars for a product and then have to figure out why it doesn't work or why this software crashed my computer.
People say that Apple dumb downs their products for the masses...I say they are doing giving me what I paid for. A finished product that works as it should!
Score
-6
April 20, 2010 5:21:46 PM

Correction......

People say that Apple dumb downs their products for the masses...I say they are giving me what I paid for; A finished product that works as it should!
Score
-7
April 20, 2010 5:26:56 PM

Apple has had a lot of wins lately, but they have had some duds (iCrap) in their history as well. Remember the Newton? Lisa? The desk lamp shaped iMac? Everything Steve Jobs touches in not gold. Only time will tell which side of the fence the iPad will fall on. But it certainly is not a run-away success like the iPod or the iPhone. The Newton is actually a really interesting example, because Apple was ahead of the competition by a number of years, but the PDA market didn't take off until someone else, Palm, can along and did it better.
Score
3
April 20, 2010 5:34:24 PM

I thought Microsoft already won the battle of the copycats? They have a 30 year legacy to prove it.
Score
-7
April 20, 2010 5:36:04 PM

Hmm we do need more competition now I'ma look toward HP Slate and this Google one :D 
Score
0
April 20, 2010 5:56:55 PM

back_by_demandOpen vs Closed - Interesting arguement.The statement is that the closed system is one that "just works" but you are forced to use pay-for Apps that Apple has the ultimate sanction over.The further statement is that the open system is one that allows you to use whatever software you want from wherever. The underlying implied statement is that the closed system and the "just works" are somehow linked and that being closed is what gives it stability. Poppycock. Where is it written anywhere that if a system is open it has to be unstable. A system may very well be unstable, or have been accused of being so in the past (eg "MS made Win ME so buggy so I dont trust Win 7, blah blah").But let's get this straight. An open system is not the cause of instability. It may be a contributing factor, but the main reason why things go belly up is people installing something they shouldn't. This takes us back to the App Store. They ensure that only approved Apps go through to the end user and the end user is not given the choice other than what Apple tells them.This is not a fanboy issue, this goes to the root of a political stance for many people, so imagine it was your Government.Do you prefer an all-encompassing Party machine that runs everything, because they are supposedly the people in charge and therefore more qualified to make decisions for you? Alternatively, you could have smaller Government that privatises major services and leaves decision making to the individual.Apple is basically a Communist State, which would make Steve Jobs the new Stalin.


Then you'd need to take this back as far as Nintendo, and any other gaming platform with a standard of quality and design as well as control over their platform.

This isn't a government, it's a computing platform designed with control over its apps. Even making that analogy shows a type of bias in judgement of the pros and cons of this type of control coming from someone who obviously has disdain for communism. Which isn't necessarily an evil form of government, just very non-American. And if you think capitalism/freedom is a perfect form of government for all involved, you might need to think about that.
Score
-6
April 20, 2010 6:00:30 PM

gsacksApple has had a lot of wins lately, but they have had some duds (iCrap) in their history as well. Remember the Newton? Lisa? The desk lamp shaped iMac? Everything Steve Jobs touches in not gold. Only time will tell which side of the fence the iPad will fall on. But it certainly is not a run-away success like the iPod or the iPhone. The Newton is actually a really interesting example, because Apple was ahead of the competition by a number of years, but the PDA market didn't take off until someone else, Palm, can along and did it better.


The desk lamp iMac was actually a big success. The iPad is already selling more than the first iPhone, but everyone needs a phone so I'd say for its market, it's selling extremely well.

As far as Palm and the Newton go, that was different iteration of Apple, certainly not as successful as the Apple of today, especially at that time.
Score
-6
April 20, 2010 6:40:09 PM

GodfailThen you'd need to take this back as far as Nintendo, and any other gaming platform with a standard of quality and design as well as control over their platform.This isn't a government, it's a computing platform designed with control over its apps. Even making that analogy shows a type of bias in judgement of the pros and cons of this type of control coming from someone who obviously has disdain for communism. Which isn't necessarily an evil form of government, just very non-American. And if you think capitalism/freedom is a perfect form of government for all involved, you might need to think about that.

Thanks for the engaging feedback.
You are right, Apple is not a Government but the way it runs its business is the same way that a communist government runs its country. As far as saying that Democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be I will refer you to Winston Churchill who said:-
Quote:
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.

Churchill doesn't really defend the virtues of democracy as a system of government, but rather takes a pragmatic approach - it's not exactly great as a form of government, but it's the best of a bad bunch. If something better comes along, perhaps we will move to that. But are there better systems of government? Is something being developed that will remove the flaws of democracy?

Those who believe in Democracy, or in this case, the right to have an Open system, believe in the right to choose, even if the choice is wrong. Whereas in a Communist state, or in this case, a Closed system, once you give up the right to choose and let someone else do all the thinking and choice making for you, you will never be allowed the right to choose for yourself again.

As I believe in the right to choose, I will defend your choice to give up that freedom for yourself, but unless this country was taken over by Joseph Stalin recently no one has the right to make up my mind for me and that goes for what software I want to run, including Flash player. If Steve Jobs thinks that Flash will crash the iPad then I say "thanks for the warning" and would ask him to kindly put a disclaimer on his product and if it all goes tits up I will only have myself to blame. We are not kids and we do not need to be coddled.
Score
0
April 20, 2010 6:52:17 PM

pcwormandroid good..a .NET based OS better, if going any way near Microsoft.., a win 7.. UI specialized for the tablet, simplified and stripped to the bone..but capable of running virtually all win apps..just my 2 cents

It's always better to have native programs rather than programs that use something like .NET to do everything for them. Apple, Google and Microsoft should all require developers to design a native version of their apps for every single mobile processor that's currently in use. If a program were designed specifically for Qualcomm's Snapdragon processor it would have a massive performance improvement VS a program that doesn't know what processor it's running on.
Score
0
April 20, 2010 7:34:44 PM

The problem with openness is also the consistency of quality. Last time when I tried android phone on HTC, it was pretty bad comparing to iPhone. The problem behind is that the hardware makers make them differently where users may have different experience, taste and feel. On one hand, it is good that users can choose whatever vendors that they like (if gPad, I call it, is going to be built by different vendors); on the other hand, it bring inconsistent user experience, which eventually negatively affect "Google Experience".

Only if Google monitors the entire build process with same hardware and same design, people will love the consistency of it even though many of them would complain about not having choice of vendors, they will still complain while they have their gPad at hands.

m2c :) 
Score
-1
April 20, 2010 7:35:13 PM

The problem with openness is also the consistency of quality. Last time when I tried android phone on HTC, it was pretty bad comparing to iPhone. The problem behind is that the hardware makers make them differently where users may have different experience, taste and feel. On one hand, it is good that users can choose whatever vendors that they like (if gPad, I call it, is going to be built by different vendors); on the other hand, it bring inconsistent user experience, which eventually negatively affect "Google Experience".

Only if Google monitors the entire build process with same hardware and same design, people will love the consistency of it even though many of them would complain about not having choice of vendors, they will still complain while they have their gPad at hands.

m2c :) 
Score
1
April 20, 2010 7:48:56 PM

Still fail to see the usefulness of a tablet computer. But maybe I just live my life different than other people.

For the sake of competition, I hope that both the upcoming Google tablet and the HP tablet will do well.

But if it is anything like the Android, Apple's superior branding will win over the tablet, just like it did with the iPhone, even if Android phones are better. My brother has an Android phone, and he gets ask by people if it is an iPhone. When he tells them no, and that is an Android phone, he usually gets the "I've never heard of that before" response.

The real crowning jewel of Apple is their superior marketing team. Without that, they would be nothing.
Score
-3
April 20, 2010 7:54:12 PM

back_by_demandThanks for the engaging feedback.You are right, Apple is not a Government but the way it runs its business is the same way that a communist government runs its country. As far as saying that Democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be I will refer you to Winston Churchill who said:-Churchill doesn't really defend the virtues of democracy as a system of government, but rather takes a pragmatic approach - it's not exactly great as a form of government, but it's the best of a bad bunch. If something better comes along, perhaps we will move to that. But are there better systems of government? Is something being developed that will remove the flaws of democracy?Those who believe in Democracy, or in this case, the right to have an Open system, believe in the right to choose, even if the choice is wrong. Whereas in a Communist state, or in this case, a Closed system, once you give up the right to choose and let someone else do all the thinking and choice making for you, you will never be allowed the right to choose for yourself again.As I believe in the right to choose, I will defend your choice to give up that freedom for yourself, but unless this country was taken over by Joseph Stalin recently no one has the right to make up my mind for me and that goes for what software I want to run, including Flash player. If Steve Jobs thinks that Flash will crash the iPad then I say "thanks for the warning" and would ask him to kindly put a disclaimer on his product and if it all goes tits up I will only have myself to blame. We are not kids and we do not need to be coddled.


And I will refer you to George Bernard Shaw, "Under communism man oppresses man, while under capitalism it is just the reverse."

This is NOT a closed system, it is a regulated system...and apparently you think that laws and regulations are akin to communism. Flash is bad for battery life and it will cause apps to break other apps, not just its own, and that is why it is not supported. This is actually a lot more like America than you might think.

In my case, I don't care if Flash is there or not, I want the function, not the need to say what makes it function. The closest argument I have to yours about controlling things is the content regulations Apple puts on apps, not the development ones. So you have to drive in the right lane instead of all over the road, too bad.
Score
-6
April 20, 2010 7:59:24 PM

ragnar-konStill fail to see the usefulness of a tablet computer. But maybe I just live my life different than other people.For the sake of competition, I hope that both the upcoming Google tablet and the HP tablet will do well.But if it is anything like the Android, Apple's superior branding will win over the tablet, just like it did with the iPhone, even if Android phones are better. My brother has an Android phone, and he gets ask by people if it is an iPhone. When he tells them no, and that is an Android phone, he usually gets the "I've never heard of that before" response.The real crowning jewel of Apple is their superior marketing team. Without that, they would be nothing.


Really, the crowning jewel at Apple is their demand for quality and formfactors, not their marketing. To say they'd be nothing without marketing is extreme hyperbole. The commercials merely showed what the iphone could do, hell, they were just a phone and two hands. What about that marketing is seperate from having the product? Mac vs. PC ads have nothing to do with the product, and the PC wins in that fight. So really, you could argue that marketing is actually hurting Apple.
Score
-2
April 20, 2010 8:15:20 PM

A Google clone might well take market share from the iPad, but it would also significantly increase the total market size as more people find more things to do with tablets. It'd be good for us, for Google, and for Apple.
Score
1
April 20, 2010 8:33:52 PM

I don't understand. How is this different from a PS3/360/Wii/DS? Don't they all have closed systems as well? Last time I checked, people are perfectly happy in that environment.

I see many people comparing this to governments. There is one issue, the government is a monopoly on your society. Many times you cannot choose which government you live in. You can however, go to a store and decide what products to buy.

If we think the iPad is a communist product, we are inclined to think that products from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are communist as well.

Score
0
April 20, 2010 8:40:27 PM

GodfailAnd I will refer you to George Bernard Shaw, "Under communism man oppresses man, while under capitalism it is just the reverse."This is NOT a closed system, it is a regulated system...and apparently you think that laws and regulations are akin to communism. Flash is bad for battery life and it will cause apps to break other apps, not just its own, and that is why it is not supported. This is actually a lot more like America than you might think.In my case, I don't care if Flash is there or not, I want the function, not the need to say what makes it function. The closest argument I have to yours about controlling things is the content regulations Apple puts on apps, not the development ones. So you have to drive in the right lane instead of all over the road, too bad.

Seems like Democracy is in action on Tom's forums
Seems like BackByDemand's comments are getting thumbs up and yours are getting thumbs down.
Just an observation...
Score
2
April 20, 2010 8:41:18 PM

I true useful tablet that would blow everyone out of the water needs these.
USB -- for thumb drives duh... and possibly external DVD support. Watch a movie? use the external DVD option darn it

GPS/compass. Cell phones have this, you don't have to have a GSM connection, just a simple lat/long display. Have apps that use loaded maps

Webcam w/ microphone ability. As long as you don't cover up the webcam with your palm, video messaging on a tablet is essential. even if its a 1.4mp, its all you need for webcamin.

A pictureframe kick stand.... Cmon, just a lil ole plastic peice that allows you to set your tablet upright on a desk.
Score
0
April 20, 2010 8:44:27 PM

irh_1974Seems like Democracy is in action on Tom's forumsSeems like BackByDemand's comments are getting thumbs up and yours are getting thumbs down.Just an observation...


Yeah, considering anything said that could work in Apple's favor is an immediate thumbs down, I'll attribute that to the same crap we see in America every day - political polarity.
Score
-2
April 20, 2010 8:45:54 PM

Just look at them creating products that people won't need or under performing for their needs. This is all to common when they or their competitors have locked down a market sector and monopolized it. The future of IT is open source. Open source platform, open source hardware, and open source system and application software. In open source monopolies such as Apple or Google simply can't exist along with much of the industry since it allows for free market dynamics. Competition of two or three isn't competition at all, oh my I can see more cheering for the home hog. :s

"Think different"
Score
0
April 20, 2010 8:50:55 PM

Lots to read, lots to respond to. However, due to the length of each response, I'll stick to just two for now:

1) Always remember the difference between the individual unit and the generalizations of a collective.

For example, one person may find a netbook useless. That does not mean they are. One person may find a netbook useful. That does not mean they are. As a collective whole, the success of the netbook market is an indicator that there is a significant segment of the collective whole that finds them useful. (Myself I have a 4G EEE PC with Windows XP and eeectl on it - it is the only computer I own at the moment that I can crank the screen brightness and see in full daylight. I find that quite useful.)

Also, one person may not be swayed by marketing while one person may be. That does not mean that marketing is a success or failure. However, based on the number of ad-based web sites, advertising in commercial and public media, the number of billboards, and the number of products that succeed based on marketing campaigns (and the number that fail due to the lack of marketing), we can generalize and say that marketing does sway the collective whole and is vital. The Mac vs PC ad campaigns show that Apple has a good command of marketing, as do the iPod ads, so it is fair to say that marketing contributes significantly (but not entirely) to their success.

---------------------------------------

2) Single systems versus hybrid systems

My father once told me that any single system solution is a bad idea. This is being compared to political systems, which is a bad analogy because of the hidden connotations these systems have for individuals. (To generalize, using the the "communist" label has long been a way to try to ruin an opponent's career in the U.S.)

If a closed system is a socialist state that enforces absolute control, then an open system is not a democracy - it is anarchy (the lack of a government). Anarchy can work, but human nature often prevents that from happening. Democracy, especially the representative democracy of the US, is a hybrid system.

So what would a hybrid system look like? The manufacturer produces the environment and tools to develop in that environment. They allow anyone to develop and hack their system as they want, thus giving them total freedom with the device they purchased and/or develop for. However, they also implement a certification system - they create a list of applications and modifications that they state are guaranteed to work with their system or environment. Anything outside of this and you are on your own, thus you suffer the consequences.

Thus, in a hybrid system you allow your users to step outside of your environment but state there will be consequences. Maybe the consequence is the loss of support or warranty, or perhaps no guarantee of performance.

However, to say we must be pure open or pure closed in a system is creating a false dichotomy in the minds of the consumer. It is not anarchy or socialism - there are representational democracies, socialist democracies, pure democracies, fascist states, slave states, theocracies, and so forth.
Score
4
April 20, 2010 8:52:42 PM

Oh, just one more quick thing:

Quote:
Imagine a visual programming language that would enable you to create simple applications to perform very specialized tasks.


The closest I have seen come to this is the scripting language sikuli - it is just a scripting language, but check it out if it interests you. (I find it interesting.)
Score
0
April 20, 2010 8:54:23 PM

nforce4maxJust look at them creating products that people won't need or under performing for their needs. This is all to common when they or their competitors have locked down a market sector and monopolized it. The future of IT is open source. Open source platform, open source hardware, and open source system and application software. In open source monopolies such as Apple or Google simply can't exist along with much of the industry since it allows for free market dynamics. Competition of two or three isn't competition at all, oh my I can see more cheering for the home hog. :s "Think different"


IT and consumer products are two different worlds, except when it comes to the users, who we lock down so they don't hurt themselves. Apple's world is basically itself and its consumers, and they lock it down somewhat. Using those very same IT idealogies is how Apple is assuring functioning products for its customers.

What I admire about Apple is that they actually use open standards in that process, moreso than Microsoft does...and I wouldn't really say that Microsoft's position in the IT world is threatened by open source these days. I love UNIX, but what MS gets right is interoperability between their products out of the box. If you try and mix and match, you run into problems.
Score
-2
April 20, 2010 9:04:46 PM

I've bought an iPod touch a while ago... I was shocked. NOBODY mentions embarrassing facts about it's so called "software limitations": one of them is YOU CAN'T COPY STUFF FROM YOUR OWN GADGET!!! My own NON DRM videos, that I've made with my camera and put on the bloody device!!!

Apple is a niche market and with Mr Jobbs business habits, it will remain this way.
Score
0
April 20, 2010 9:16:52 PM

kartuI've bought an iPod touch a while ago... I was shocked. NOBODY mentions embarrassing facts about it's so called "software limitations": one of them is YOU CAN'T COPY STUFF FROM YOUR OWN GADGET!!! My own NON DRM videos, that I've made with my camera and put on the bloody device!!!Apple is a niche market and with Mr Jobbs business habits, it will remain this way.


That's what kept me from buying iPods for years...but I've learned to live with it now. It's copy protection, at its worst. I wouldn't call it a "limitation" since it's done purposefully to maintain Apple's great relationship with its content providers. You can do this though, with that Air Sharing app. But yeah, it was a deal killer for me...until I bought the iPhone. Now I just make everything I own available to myself via SSH tunnels and if I want to give somethign to someone, I send it remotely from my iPhone.

But about Apple being a niche market...it's not in the world of phones, it's not in the world of media players, it's not in the world of tablets...and hell, it's the dominating leader of all three right now.

In the world of PC's, Apple is at what, 18% now? Now consider the world of consumer PC's, it's much higher. Then when you get into consumer laptops, I haven't seen numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if they're one of the top sellers. Watching their growth in software compatibility, they're no longer what I'd call niche.
Score
-1
!